Tendon Harvest for Treatment of Radial Nerve Palsy Using Endoscopic Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic method for many surgeries with minimal access is proposed to be effective for preventing the excessive scar formation, reducing pain, cosmesis, and the early return to work. Surgical outcomes of endoscopic and open methods for tendon harvest in treatment of radial nerve palsy were evaluated. METHODS: In a randomized single-blind clinical trial study, 10 patients with radial nerve palsy who referred to the Plastic Surgery Department of the Fatimah Zahra Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran were divided into two equal groups. Flexor carpi radialis (FCR), flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) and the palmaris longus (PL) tendons were harvested by endoscopic or open techniques. The outcomes (tendon harvest time, rate of post-surgical pain, amount of pain medication, patient satisfaction, amount of scar, and length of scar) are measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in time of surgery between two methods. Vancouver scar scale, cosmetic satisfaction, severity of postoperative pain and also drugs for pain relief after tendon harvest surgery were significantly lower in endoscopic method than open method. CONCLUSION: Regarding the low invasiveness, high satisfaction rate of patients, low pain severity, low scar and the little need for opiate to reduce pain in the endoscopic method, endoscopic tendon harvest technique for radial nerve palsy seems to have priority over open method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".