Outcomes of Secondary Combined Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Release and Zone II Flexor Tenolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tendon adhesions and capsular contractures following trauma to the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) may significantly reduce hand function. Traditional, staged surgical management prioritizes restoration of PIPJ passive range of motion with joint release prior to restoration of active range of motion (AROM) with tenolysis. This is expensive and burdensome for patients. Our objective was to evaluate functional outcomes of combined PIPJ release and zone II flexor tenolysis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent combined PIPJ release and flexor tenolysis. Replantation and tendon graft cases were excluded. Data were collected on pre- and postoperative AROM, total active motion (TAM), tip to distal palmar crease (DPC) distance, and grip strength. Functional outcomes were graded using the Boyes, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and modified Strickland scores. Results: Twelve patients (9 men and 3 women, median age = 40 years) with a total of 15 digits underwent combined PIPJ release and flexor tenolysis a median of 10.1 months after injury. At a median follow-up of 4.0 months, there were significant improvements in median PIPJ AROM (15° to 70°), TAM (105° to 223°), tip to DPC distance (6.0 to 2.0 cm), and grip strength (35% to 54% of unaffected hand). Modified Strickland score was good in 46% of digits and excellent in 38%. There were no tendon ruptures, surgical site infections, or devascularized digits. Conclusion: Proximal interphalangeal joint stiffness is a challenging complication of hand trauma. Although a complete return to premorbid range of motion and function is rarely attained with surgery, improved outcomes may be consistently achieved with secondary combined PIPJ release and zone II flexor tenolysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".