Outcomes of Management of Recurrent Dupuytren Contracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With numerous treatment modalities available, it is unclear whether the treatment of recurrent Dupuytren disease is as effective as its initial treatment. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of management of recurrent Dupuytren contracture. Methods: Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to April 2020. Studies of patients aged above 18 years undergoing treatment for recurrent Dupuytren contractures were included. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool was used for quality assessment. The study was registered with Open Science Foundation. Results: A systematic review identified 12 studies: 311 patients with 224 affected digits—index (n = 5; 2.2%), long (n = 17; 7.6%), ring (n = 57; 25.4%), small (n = 112; 50%), and unspecified (n = 33; 14.7%); of these, there were 76 metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPJ; 45.5%), 90 proximal phalangeal joints (PIPJ; 53.9%), and 1 distal interphalangeal joint (0.6%). Previous treatment included the following: percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (n = 103 of 311 patients; 33.1%), collagenase clostridium histolyticum-injection (CCH; n = 75 of 311; 24.1%), limited fasciectomy (LF) ± skin graft (n = 83 of 311; 26.7%), fasciotomy (n = 1 of 311; 0.3%), and unspecified (n = 64 of 311; 20.6%). Recurrence was treated by percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (n = 68 of 311 patients; 21.9%); CCH injection (n = 53 of 311; 17.0%); aponeurotomy or dermofasciectomy or LF (n = 176 of 311; 56.6%); ray/digit amputation (n = 8 of 311; 2.6%); and PIPJ arthrodesis (n = 6 of 293; 2.0%). Range of motion was improved by 23.31° (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.13°-33.50°; I 2 = 67%; P = .05) and 15.49° (95% CI = 2.67°-28.31°; I 2 = 76%; P = .01) for MCPJ and PIPJ, respectively. Conclusions: There is low level of evidence that both surgical and nonsurgical treatments provide clinically important improvements for recurrent Dupuytren contracture.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".