Evaluation of Intrinsic Hand Musculature Reinnervation following Supercharge End-to-Side Anterior Interosseous–to–Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer is commonly performed in the authors' institution to augment intrinsic hand function. Following observations of recovery patterns, the authors hypothesized that despite its more distal innervation, the first dorsal interosseous muscle recovers to a greater extent than the abductor digiti minimi muscle. The objective of this work was to evaluate the clinical and electrodiagnostic pattern of reinnervation of intrinsic hand musculature following supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer. A retrospective cohort of prospectively collected data included all patients who underwent a supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer. Two independent reviewers performed data collection. Reinnervation was assessed with two primary outcome measures: (1) clinically, with serial Medical Research Council strength assessments; and (2) electrodiagnostically, with serial motor amplitude measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric statistics. Seventeen patients (65 percent male; mean age, 56.9 ± 13.3 years) were included with a mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 8.5 months. Preoperatively, all patients demonstrated clinically significant weakness and electrodiagnostic evidence of denervation. Postoperatively, strength and motor amplitude increased significantly for both the first dorsal interosseous muscle (p = 0.002 and p = 0.016) and the abductor digiti minimi muscle (p = 0.044 and p = 0.015). Despite comparable preoperative strength (p = 0.098), postoperatively, the first dorsal interosseous muscle achieved significantly greater strength when compared to the abductor digiti minimi muscle (p = 0.023). Following supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer, recovery of intrinsic muscle function differs between the abductor digiti minimi and the first dorsal interosseous muscles, with better recovery observed in the more distally innervated first dorsal interosseous muscle. Further work to elucidate the underlying physiologic and anatomical basis for this discrepancy is indicated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, IV.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".