Fowler Central Slip Tenotomy or Spiral Oblique Retinacular Ligament Reconstruction? A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study in Swan-Neck Deformity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The goal of this study is to biomechanically compare Fowler central slip tenotomy with spiral oblique retinacular ligament (SORL) reconstruction in correcting a chronic mallet deformity as part of a swan-neck deformity. Methods: We used 24 human cadaver fingers from 6 hands. Mallet finger and swan-neck deformities were created; then, Fowler tenotomy was done on one group including 3 hands with 12 fingers, and SORL reconstruction was done on the others. Results: During simulated finger extension, there was no significant difference between the 2 techniques in correcting the distal interphalangeal joint droop; however, Fowler tenotomy resulted in hyperflexion of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint, whereas it remained straight after SORL reconstruction. Conclusions: This study supports the SORL reconstruction in correcting a chronic mallet deformity, especially when there is a concomitant PIP hyperextension deformity, which lowers the risk of reversing the deformity after a Fowler procedure.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it