Enhancing Upper Extremity Function with Reconstructive Surgery in Persons with Tetraplegia: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To review the evidence for interventions in peer-reviewed published literature for reconstructive surgical procedures in the upper extremity for persons with tetraplegia following spinal cord injury (SCI). Method: A critical review and synthesis of articles addressing reconstructive surgical procedures was conducted. Each article was assessed for quality using the Downs and Black evaluation tool. Following this, a level of evidence using a modified Sackett scale was assigned to each intervention within these categories. Results: Each of the surgical procedures reviewed had numerous pre-post or case series studies that provide level 4 evidence (grade C) to support the use of reconstructive surgical procedures in improving upper extremity motor and functional use of the limb in individuals with tetraplegia following an SCI. Conclusion: There is evidence that reconstructive surgical procedures enhance upper extremity function for persons with tetraplegia. Although there is a need for higher quality evidence through improved study designs, there are both ethical and logistical constraints that present challenges in studying this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".