A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Aspiration and Fibrin Sealant Use Versus Aspiration Alone in the Treatment of Dorsal Wrist Ganglia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Multiple treatments for dorsal wrist ganglia (DWG) exist but have high recurrence rates. We investigated whether aspiration followed by injection of Tisseel is more effective at reducing the DWG recurrence rate than aspiration alone. Methods: Adults with untreated DWG were randomly assigned to aspiration alone (A) or aspiration followed by Tisseel injection (AT). Patients were measured at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcome was the rate of recurrence. Secondary outcomes included recurrent ganglion size and maximum pain experienced from the ganglion. Continuous data were compared with Student t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Categorical data were compared with χ 2 tests and Fisher exact tests. Treatment effect was reported as relative risk or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Seventy-nine patients were randomized to the A (n = 39) or AT (n = 40) group. Twenty-five patients were lost to follow-up. There were no differences in recurrence risk between groups at 1, 6, or 12 months ( P > .05). Ganglia were significantly smaller for both groups at 1 month versus baseline ( P < .001). The A group demonstrated a significantly larger decrease in size at 1 month versus the AT group (MD = 0.75 cm 2 , 95% confidence interval: 0.07-1.43, P = .03). Both groups experienced significantly less pain at 1, 6, and 12 months ( P < .03), but this was not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: Aspiration and Tisseel injection does not decrease DWG recurrence versus aspiration alone. Both interventions produced a significant decrease in pain. Although aspiration alone carries a high recurrence risk, it may provide sufficient symptomatic relief for patients with DWG.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".