Treatment of Stages IIIA and IIIB in Kienbock's Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite numerous proposed surgical interventions, there is a lack of consensus in the optimal treatment of advanced Kienbock's disease. Purpose This study aims to perform a systematic review of the current evidence in the management of Lichtman's stages IIIA and IIIB of the disease. Methods A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases to identify studies between 2008 and 2018 evaluating stage-specific outcomes in Lichtman's stages IIIA and IIIB. The quality of each included paper was evaluated using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES). Data extracted were stage-specificity, clinical and functional outcomes, and radiographic progression of Lichtman's staging. Results A total of 1,489 titles were identified. Eighty-three papers were fully reviewed, and 30 articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion. There were 3 low-quality and 27 moderate-quality papers. Surgical techniques reported included decompression surgeries, joint-levelling, and radial wedge osteotomies, revascularization techniques, intracarpal arthrodesis, proximal row carpectomy, arthroplasty, and balloon kyphoplasty. All treatment modalities offered pain relief and improvement in functional outcomes. Compared with proximal row carpectomy, intracarpal arthrodesis, and arthroplasty, nonsalvage procedures provided similar clinical and functional outcomes in both stages, with joint-levelling and radial wedge osteotomies preserving greater range of motion. Conclusion In this systematic review of Kienbock's disease stages IIIA and IIIB, all treatment modalities provided positive outcomes. In stage IIIB, there is evidence to support nonsalvage procedures, as they produced similar clinical outcomes to salvage procedures that have the advantage of not precluding future treatment options if needed and preserving greater range of motion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".