Surgery and Conservative Management of Camptodactyly in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Camptodactyly is a pediatric hand condition, the treatment of which remains controversial. The authors' aim was to improve patient care through clarifying the definition of camptodactyly and indications for surgical and/or conservative management, summarizing outcomes, and defining risks. A systematic review was conducted of articles in all languages on outcomes following surgical and/or conservative management of idiopathic camptodactyly in children using MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (until January 2017). The primary outcome was posttreatment flexion contracture, and the secondary outcomes were indications for surgery, complications, and patient satisfaction. Database searching generated 16 final articles, with 7 case series and 9 retrospective cohort studies. There was a lack of consistency on the definition of camptodactyly and in outcome reporting. All 16 studies received a "Weak" global rating and demonstrated low-quality evidence, suggesting that treatment of camptodactyly with operative or nonoperative measures reduces the degree of flexion contracture in most patients (from pretreatment averages of 20°-85° to posttreatment averages of 5°-37°). There was general agreement that surgery should be reserved for contracture >30° or failure to respond to conservative management. Surgery generally led to more complications compared with conservative management. Only one study reported on functional limitations, and another reported on patient-reported outcomes. Current evidence of the effectiveness of camptodactyly treatment in addressing both joint-specific deformity and patient-perceived function and appearance is insufficient to guide patient care. Future research may consider the development of decision aids to guide patients and families through selecting management strategies and to promote shared decision making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".