Double dislocations in a single digit: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dislocation of both joints in the same digit due to a single insult is rare. To date there have been no reported cases from Canada. The purpose of our study is to review the literature and to survey plastic surgeons about this injury. We have contributed two case reports as well. Within six months, two patients presented to the Halifax Infirmary plastic surgery clinic for management of a double dislocation of a single digit. A comprehensive literature review of the English and non-English literature was performed. Additionally, a survey on experiences with double disloca- tions was developed and distributed to Plastic Surgeons practicing in Canada. 61 reported cases were identified in the literature, none of which were treated in Canada. 76% of cases were reported in English with the remaining 24% of cases reported in a non-English language (German, French). One hundred of the 373 members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons contacted replied (27%). Fourteen had previously encountered a double dislocation of a single digit. This injury was treated with closed reduction 90% of the time and splinting (65%) for two to three weeks. All patients regained normal range of motion with the exception of one. Ninety-three and 85% favored closed reduction and splinting, respectively. Two weeks was the preferred immobilization period (36%). We present the first reported cases of double dislocation of a single digit in Canada. We outline the etiology of this rare injury, previous treatments employed, and potential pitfalls encountered. The authors recommend a preferred treatment strategy for the management of double dislocation of a single digit.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".