Number of Ruptured Tendons and Surgical Delay as Prognostic Factors for the Surgical Repair of Extensor Tendon Ruptures in the Rheumatoid Wrist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extensor tendon ruptures in the rheumatoid wrist are usually restored by extensor tendon reconstruction surgery. However, the factors significantly correlated with the outcomes of extensor tendon reconstruction have not been defined. We examined factors showing a statistically significant correlation with postoperative active motion after tendon reconstruction. METHODS: Spontaneous extensor tendon ruptures of 66 wrists in patients (mean age, 52.6 yrs) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were evaluated. All patients underwent tendon reconstruction surgery with wrist arthroplasty or arthrodesis. Active ranges of motion of the affected fingers were evaluated at 12 weeks postsurgery. Statistical significance was determined using multiple and single regression analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six (69.6%) wrists had "good" results, while 13 (19.7%) and 7 (10.6%) wrists had "fair" and "poor" results, respectively. In multiple regression analysis, an increased number of ruptured tendons and the age at operation were independent variables significantly correlated with the postoperative active motion of reconstructed tendons (p = 0.009). Single regression analysis also showed a significant association between the number of ruptured tendons and surgical delay (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The number of ruptured extensor tendons was significantly correlated with the results of tendon reconstruction, and the number of ruptured tendons was significantly correlated with preoperative surgical delay. Our results indicate that, in patients presenting with possible finger extensor tendon rupture, rheumatologists should consult with hand surgeons promptly to preserve hand function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".