A volar approach to on-top plasty for correction of radial polydactyly: a case series of 21 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correction of unequal radial polydactyly in which neither thumb duplicates possess both well-developed proximal and distal components, remains challenging. Current techniques using on-top plasty techniques require circumferential incisions, often resulting in postoperative swelling and dorsal scars. We described our experience using a volar approach to achieve better aesthetic and functional results. Twenty-one patients underwent this surgery between 2008 and 2018, with a mean follow-up of 5.1 years. The mean flexion–extension arc for the metacarpophalangeal joint was 75° and that of the interphalangeal joint was 43°. Mean percentage of key, tripod and tip pinch strength were 77%, 79% and 77%, respectively, when compared with the contralateral side. The Vancouver Scar Scale showed an average score of 1.2. We conclude from our study that the volar approach to on-top plasty is a good technique for the correction of unequal radial polydactyly, with good functional and aesthetic results. Level of evidence: IV
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".