Outcomes of Revision Total Wrist Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of revision total wrist arthroplasty done over a 40-year period. During this period, 76 consecutive revision total wrist arthroplasties were done in 69 patients with a mean age of 56 and a follow-up of 10.3 years. Patients commonly experienced pain relief, with 58 (91%) experiencing no or mild pain postoperatively. There was no statistically significant change in flexion or extension, but a statistically significant decrease in ulnar deviation and a corresponding increase in radial deviation. However, a high rate of complications and repeat revision surgery were observed. The primary indications for a repeat revision surgery were distal loosening (n = 11), proximal loosening (n = 1), deformity and pain (n = 8), periprosthetic infection (n = 3), dislocation (n = 2), subluxation (n = 1), intraoperative fracture (n = 1), and suspected metal allergy (n = 1). Complications were distal loosening (n = 15), proximal loosening (n = 3), dislocation (n = 7), intraoperative fracture (n = 7), postoperative fracture (n = 2), and component fracture (n = 3). When advising the patient, clear information must be given about the high rate of complications connected with revision arthroplasty and the risk of further revision, eventually leading to total wrist fusion. 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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".