Aesthetic and Anatomic Reconstruction of Polysyndactyly of the Fifth Toe Fused With the Fourth Toe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to present a new operative technique for aesthetic and anatomic reconstruction of polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe. METHODS: Surgery was performed in 86 feet in 73 patients with polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe. The operation involved polydactyly excision, syndactyly release using an improved dorsal asymmetric gullwing flap for web space reconstruction without skin grafting, and simultaneous correction of valgus deformity and brachydactyly of the toes. The web shape (height and width),scar contracture, and aesthetic outcomes (foot contour and morphology of the reconstructed fifth toe) were assessed using the criterion of D'Arcangelo, Vancouver Scar Scale score, and older children and parent-based satisfactory questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: The patients were followed up for 12 to 36 months. The reconstructed web spaces were slightly deeper than normal, with an hourglass shape and a physiological slope. Valgus deformity was completely corrected without recurrence. The reconstructed fifth toes appeared to be visually lengthened. On the basis of the criterion of D'Arcangelo, the height and width of the webs were good in 76, fair in 10, and poor in none of the feet. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score was 1.5. All parents and patients were satisfied with the appearance and function. CONCLUSIONS: Our new operative procedure could achieve aesthetic and anatomic reconstruction of polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe with good shape of the reconstructed web space without skin grafting, favorable appearance and axis alignment of the reconstructed fifth toes, and good foot contour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".