A comparative study of lateral and palmar venous anastomosis in Ishikawa zone Ⅱ fingertip replantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Venous anastomosis is the key procedure for Ishikawa zone Ⅱ fingertip replantation. Both palmar and lateral veins provide efficient venous drainage. This study compared the clinical effects between these venous anastomoses for fingertip replantation. Methods: In 2016–2018, 61 patients underwent Ishikawa zone Ⅱ fingertip replantation with venous anastomosis (28 and 33 cases with palmar and lateral anastomoses, respectively). Retrospective comparative analyses evaluated surgical technique and function, including operative time; rates of finger survival, venous congestion, and infection; sensation; joint motion; cold intolerance symptom severity (CISS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and Vancouver scar scores; and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) rates. Results: There were 33 patients with lateral vein anastomosis and 28 patients with palmar vein anastomosis. The average patient follow-up was 18.2 months. The survival rates did not differ significantly between groups (87.8% (29/33) vs. 85.7% (24/28), p > 0.05); however, the operative time was shorter in the lateral vein group than in the palmar vein group (78.57 ± 7.08 min vs. 67.88 ± 5.77 min, p < 0.05). Venous congestion and infection rates did not differ significantly between groups ( p > 0.05). The replanted finger function, including joint motion, sensation, DASH scores, Vancouver scar scores, and CRPS rates, did not differ significantly between groups ( p > 0.05). However, the CISS score was higher in the palmar vein group than in the lateral vein group (44.39 ± 5.16 vs. 38.09 ± 4.49, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Venous anastomosis with either palmar or lateral veins showed high survival rates and good function in fingertip replantation. The lateral vein had a shorter operative time and benefit to arterial revision and was especially suitable for patients with finger pulp damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".