Fowler Central Slip Tenotomy or Spiral Oblique Retinacular Ligament Reconstruction? A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study in Swan-Neck Deformity
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".