Pronating osteotomy of the radius for forearm supination contracture in high-level tetraplegic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of performing a pronating osteotomy of the radius, coupled with other soft-tissue procedures, as part of an upper limb functional surgery programme in tetraplegic patients with supination contractures. In total 12 patients were reviewed with a mean follow-up period of 60 months (12 to 109). Pre-operatively, passive movement ranged from a mean of 19.2 degrees pronation (-70 degrees to 80 degrees ) to 95.8 degrees supination (80 degrees to 140 degrees ). A pronating osteotomy of the radius was then performed with release of the interosseous membrane. Extension of the elbow was restored postoperatively in 11 patients, with key-pinch reconstruction in nine. At the final follow-up every patient could stabilise their hand in pronation, with a mean active range of movement of 79.6 degrees (60 degrees to 90 degrees ) in pronation and 50.4 degrees (0 degrees to 90 degrees ) in supination. No complications were observed. The mean strength of extension of the elbow was 2.7 (2 to 3) MRC grading. Pronating osteotomy stabilises the hand in pronation while preserving supination, if a complete release of the interosseous membrane is also performed. This technique fits well into surgical programmes for enhancing upper limb 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".