Comparison of Ulnar Intrinsic Function following Supercharge End-to-Side Anterior Interosseous–to–Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfer: A Matched Cohort Study of Proximal Ulnar Nerve Injury Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few studies supporting supercharge end-to-side nerve transfer for high ulnar nerve injury. The current study hypothesized that patients with a supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer would demonstrate superior return of intrinsic function compared with conventional treatment only. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study matched supercharge end-to-side transfer patients based on age, level of injury, and mechanism to ulnar nerve injury patients who did not have the transfer. The primary outcome was return of ulnar intrinsic function, based on clinical examination and/or electromyography. Dichotomous and continuous variables were compared with Fisher's exact and t tests, respectively. RESULTS: Thirteen supercharge end-to-side patients were identified (>1 year follow-up). The average age of both cohorts was 35 years. Ulnar nerve transection above the proximal third of the forearm represented 54 percent of patients; compressive injuries represented 46 percent. Eleven supercharge end-to-side transfer patients (84 percent) demonstrated intrinsic function recovery compared with five (38 percent) non-supercharge end-to-side patients (p < 0.05). Average time to initial motor recovery was similar between the two groups (supercharge end-to-side, 2.9 months; non-supercharge end-to-side, 3.8 months; p > 0.2). Intrinsic function return was more likely following nerve transection with the supercharge end-to-side procedure (85 percent versus 14 percent; p = 0.03), whereas compression injuries had comparable intrinsic function return regardless of the supercharge end-to-side transfer (67 percent versus 67 percent; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This matched cohort study demonstrates that the supercharge end-to-side transfer results in increased ulnar intrinsic reinnervation following ulnar nerve injury. This finding may be most relevant following transection injuries. Improved outcomes associated with supercharge end-to-side and ulnar nerve repair warrant further investigation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".