Systematic Review of Flexor Tendon Rehabilitation Protocols in Zone II of the Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoration of function following flexor tendon repair in zone II represents a difficult clinical problem. Despite many publications on rehabilitation methods, there exists no consensus as to which method is superior. This study was undertaken to determine which flexor tendon rehabilitation protocol provides the best outcome after surgical repair in zone II. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1970 and 2009. The population included patients aged 5 years and older who sustained a flexor tendon laceration in zone II. The primary outcome was rupture rate. Secondary outcomes were range of motion and quality of life. The following protocols and their variations were considered: passive flexion and active extension protocols (Kleinert type protocols), controlled passive motion protocols (Duran type protocols), combination of the Kleinert and Duran protocols, and early active motion protocols. RESULTS: Seventy-nine articles were identified. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean rate of rupture was lowest in the combined Kleinert and Duran protocols (2.3 percent) and highest in the Kleinert protocols (7.1 percent). No statistically significant differences were found. The combined Kleinert and Duran protocols and the early active motion protocols exhibited the highest proportion of digits with excellent or good results using the Strickland and Buck-Gramcko systems. One study included a quality-of-life assessment-meaningful comparison was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Both early active motion protocols and combined Kleinert and Duran protocols result in low rates of tendon rupture and acceptable range of motion following flexor tendon repair in zone II. Future studies should include quality-of-life measurements using validated scales.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".