Functional outcome after corrective osteotomy for malunion of the distal radius: a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial was to evaluate functional outcome during the first year after corrective osteotomy for malunited distal radius fractures, with or without filling the osteotomy void. METHOD: Patients were randomised to receive a HydroSet bone substitute or no graft. Cortical contact was maintained and stabilisation of the osteotomy was carried out with a DiPhos R- or RM Plate. To evaluate subjective functional outcome, the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (Q-DASH), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the RAND-36 were used. Moreover, range of motion and grip strength were measured by blinded evaluators. Evaluations were made pre-operatively and three, six and 12 months post-operatively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups at any time point post-operatively with respect to any of the PROMs that were used or range of motion or grip strength (p > 0.05). In both groups, there was a significant improvement at the 12-month follow-up compared with pre-operatively for the PRWE, the Q-DASH and the COPM satisfaction scores. The RAND-36 revealed no significant differences except for two domains, in which there was an improvement in the treatment group (p < 0.05). For grip strength and for range of motion in all movement directions, except dorsal extension, there was a significant improvement in both groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in functional outcome during the first year after corrective open-wedge distal radius osteotomy, where cortical contact is maintained, regardless of whether or not bone substitute to fill the void is used.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".