Rehabilitation post-distraction osteogenesis for brachymetacarpia: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distraction osteogenesis for brachymetacarpia has been described in several small case series and single case reports, but the rehabilitation required to optimize outcomes has not been reported. We present a case report describing the hand rehabilitation program of a 13-year-old girl with congenital brachymetacarpia who underwent distraction osteogenesis of the third metacarpal. Intense weekly hand therapy including desensitization, scar massage, range of motion exercises and splinting was essential up to 28 weeks postoperatively to address the progressive changes in the anatomical structures. At final follow-up, she had full active range of motion, no functional deficits in grasp or in-hand manipulation skills and resumed her participation in competitive baton twirling. Patient and family satisfaction with outcome was high. However, better education regarding the progressive symptoms with distraction and daily challenges of wearing an external fixator would have improved the overall experience. With a strong family commitment to rehabilitation and thorough patient education, distraction osteogenesis for brachymetacarpia has the potential to improve functional and aesthetic outcome in the hand. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".