Primary Nerve Repair for Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nerve repair may be effective in improving function following obstetrical brachial plexus injury. No previous review has directly compared nerve repair to nonoperative management for similar patients, and no previous analysis has been adequately powered to determine whether nerve repair reduces impairment. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series (n > 9); included patients younger than 2 years undergoing nerve repair or nonoperative management of obstetrical brachial plexus injury; and reported functional impairment. Two reviewers independently screened articles using objective a priori criteria. Bias was assessed for each study. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated for each outcome. RESULTS: Among nine cohort studies including 222 patients, nerve repair significantly reduced functional impairment compared with nonoperative management (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent CI, 0.43 to 0.79; p < 0.001; I = 0 percent; absolute risk reduction, 19 percent; number needed to treat, six). Findings are consistent with comparison of similar patients from case series. With operative management, no deaths were reported; major adverse events were reported in 1.5 percent, and minor adverse events were reported in 5.0 percent of cases. Among demographic (all severities) samples managed nonoperatively, residual impairment remains in 27 percent (19 to 36 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Nerve repair reduces functional impairment in obstetrical brachial plexus injury. Nonoperative management in patients with a deficit at 3 months of age leads to a high proportion of functional impairment. Mortality is not a common risk of modern pediatric microsurgical nerve repair. Residual impairment with nonoperative management is underestimated in the reported literature. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".