MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972449815 · doi:10.1177/1758573219872730

Surgical treatment of trapezius palsy: A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2972449815 on OpenAlexaff
Rawaan Elsawi, Seline Y. Vancolen, Nolan S. Horner, Moin Khan, Bashar Alolabi

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurolysisTrapezius musclePalsySurgeryPhysical therapyPatient satisfactionMEDLINEScapulaAccessory nerveQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Trapezius palsy results from injury to the spinal accessory nerve. The condition presents with loss of shoulder abduction, pain, and winging of the scapula. Surgical treatment may improve functional outcomes and quality of life. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report and evaluate the clinical outcomes following surgical management of trapezius palsy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched for studies and relevant data were abstracted. Only studies reporting on outcomes after the surgical treatments of trapezius palsy were included. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies including 192 patients were included in this review. All surgical interventions resulted in improved function and pain reduction. Patients reported high satisfaction (90-92%) following nerve reconstruction or the Eden-Lange procedure, in comparison to neurolysis. The most common procedure reported was the Eden-Lange muscle transfer (32% reported cases) demonstrating the highest patient satisfaction rates with low complication rate of 7.7%. CONCLUSION: Patients failing conservative treatment report good outcomes following surgical treatment of trapezius palsy. All reported surgical procedures demonstrate reduction in pain the best results from the Eden-Lange muscle transfer. Further high-quality comparative studies are required to make definitive conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy of each surgical 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207