Restoration of shoulder motion using single- versus dual-nerve repair in obstetrical brachial plexus injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare shoulder abduction and external rotation (ER) after single-nerve repair of the upper trunk alone versus dual-nerve repair of both the upper trunk and the suprascapular nerve. METHODS A retrospective chart review of a single surgeon's experience repairing obstetrical brachial plexus injuries between June 1995 and June 2015 was performed. Eight patients underwent repair of the upper trunk alone, and 10 patients underwent repair of the upper trunk and the suprascapular nerve. Shoulder abduction and ER ranges of motion (ROMs) (in degrees) were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. Postoperative ROM and the difference in ROM gained after surgery were compared by independent t-test analysis. RESULTS The mean follow-up time was 161.4 weeks (range 62-514 weeks, SD 124.0 weeks). The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 31.3 weeks (range 19.9-47.0 weeks, SD 6.9 weeks). The mean postoperative shoulder abduction ROMs were 145.0° (range 85°-180°, SD 39.4°) after single-nerve repair and 134.0° (range 90°-180°, SD 30.3°) after dual-nerve repair (p = 0.51). The mean postoperative shoulder ER ROMs were 67.5° (range 10°-95°, SD 28.8°) after single-nerve repair and 72.0° (range 10°-95°, SD 31.3°) after dual-nerve repair (p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS The authors found no difference in shoulder abduction and ER between patients who underwent single-nerve repair of the upper trunk alone and those who underwent dual-nerve repair of both the upper trunk and the suprascapular nerve.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".