Results after treatment of congenital radioulnar synostosis: a systematic review and pooled data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital radioulnar synostosis (CRUS) is one of the most common congenital disorders affecting the elbow and forearm, with the forearm being fixed in a range of positions usually varying from neutral rotation to severe pronation. The aim of this study, apart from a systematic review of all surgical procedures described for CRUS, is to derive any correlation between various influencing factors, outcomes and complications. This review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses format by an electronic literature search of Ovid, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Grading was according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Demographic data, surgical procedures, outcomes and complications were analyzed. Outcome data were pooled to establish means and ranges across all studies. Spearman correlations were performed. A total of 23 articles, showing a poor overall study quality (all Level of Evidence IV), met the inclusion criteria. A total of 374 forearms with a mean age of 6.7 years (2.0-18.8) were analyzed. Derotational surgeries were more commonly performed (91%) than motion-preserving surgeries (9%). The mean deformity improved from 64.8° pronation (-75° to 110°) to a mean of 2.8° pronation (-50° to 80°). In total, 17.9% of patients presented with complications. A significant correlation was noted between age and major complications, proximal osteotomies and complications, and postoperative loss of reduction and double level osteotomies as the primary treatment modality. Most of the complications occurred above the threshold of 65-70° of correction and in children 7 years and above. Surgery is essential to improve the quality of life of children with CRUS. However, each type of surgery is associated with complications, along with the respective hardware being used in rotation osteotomies. Caution is, nevertheless, warranted in interpreting these results in view of the inherent limitations of the included studies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".