Tendon Rupture and Tenosynovitis following Internal Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tendon-related complications after plate fixation of distal radius fractures can cause significant morbidity in the patient. This retrospective systematic review aims to report and compare the current rate of tendon rupture and tenosynovitis complicating the operative management of distal radius fractures. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles reporting tendon complications after operative management of distal radius fractures. The search included published articles in three electronic databases-Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-starting from the establishment of each database to February of 2016. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 6278 patients. Overall tendon-related adverse events were reported in 420 patients (6.8 percent). The incidence of tendon rupture was 1.5 percent with volar plates and 1.7 percent with dorsal plates. The incidence of tenosynovitis was 4.5 percent with volar plates and 7.5 percent with dorsal plates. Individual tendon complications were reported with volar and dorsal fixation, respectively: extensor pollicis longus tenosynovitis (0.3 percent and 1.1 percent), extensor pollicis longus rupture (0.8 percent and 0.3 percent), flexor pollicis longus tenosynovitis (1.3 percent and 0 percent), flexor pollicis longus rupture (0.6 percent and 0.2 percent), flexor digitorum profundus/flexor digitorum superficialis tenosynovitis (1.2 percent and 1.3 percent), flexor digitorum profundus/flexor digitorum superficialis rupture (0.1 percent and 0 percent), extensor digitorum communis tenosynovitis (1.7 percent and 5.9 percent), and extensor digitorum communis rupture (0.05 percent and 1.3 percent). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an update on the literature regarding tendon-related complications in the management of distal radius fractures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".