A systematic review of rehabilitation protocols following surgical repair of the extensor pollicis longus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The goal of this systematic review was to determine which rehabilitation protocol (static, dynamic or early active) yields the best outcomes following repair of the extensor pollicis longus (EPL) tendon in the following domains: total active motion (TAM), grip strength and range of motion. Methods A comprehensive and systematic literature search was run. The retrieved abstracts and titles were screened by two independent reviewers. Rehabilitation protocols were classified as static, dynamic or early active. Methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were assessed using the SIGN50 scale. Results Fifteen articles were included in the final analysis ( κ = 0.8). From this total, five studies employed static splinting, 12 dynamic splinting and two early active splinting. Static splinting yielded ‘excellent’/‘good’ results ranging from 50% (minimum) to 60% (maximum) on the TAM classification system and a weighted mean TAM of 73.0 ± 24.0° (range 58.75–85°). Dynamic splinting studies demonstrated ‘excellent’/‘good’ results ranging from 64.4% (minimum) to 98% (maximum) and a weighted mean TAM of 111.2 ± 11.7° (range 89–134°) ( P < 0.001 and mean difference of 38.2 (95% confidence interval: 32.2–44.2). In one study, early active motion resulted in 83% of patients having ‘excellent’/‘good’ ratings. Discussion The available level II–IV evidence suggests better outcomes when using dynamic splinting over static splinting for rehabilitation of the EPL tendon repair. Further evidence is required to clinically confirm the differences between early active and dynamic rehabilitation protocols.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".