Incidence of Posterior Interosseous Nerve Trauma During Creation of the 3‐4 Wrist Arthroscopy Portal in Cadavers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe histologic evidence of nerve trauma during the creation and use of the 3-4 portal. METHODS: Fourteen fresh-frozen cadaveric wrists were mounted on a custom-built frame that simulated a wrist arthroscopy traction tower. After the 3-4 portal was created in the usual manner, the skin was dissected off to identify possible trauma to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN). Specimens were categorized into those where there was clearly no trauma to the PIN and those where trauma was possible. In the cases where trauma was possible, we harvested the PIN with a cuff of the proximal edge of the portal and examined the cross-sectional histology of the most distal sections for the presence of neural tissue. RESULTS: There was clearly no trauma to the PIN in 3 of the wrists during the creation of the 3-4 portal. In the remaining 11 wrists with possible trauma to the PIN, we identified axonal tissue on histologic examination at the proximal edge of the 3-4 portal in 7 of these specimens. In summary, 50% (7 of 14) of our specimens had visual and histologic evidence of trauma to the PIN. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, there may be more instances of trauma to the PIN during routine wrist arthroscopy than have been previously reported. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings suggest that transection or injury to this nerve may not lead to any clinical sequelae. However, if there is an instance where a patient has persistent, otherwise unexplained, dorsal wrist pain after a wrist arthroscopy procedure, iatrogenic neuroma of the PIN may be responsible and should be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".