Recurrence Rate After Wide Resection of Plantar Fibromatosis: A Case Series and Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the recurrence rate and clinical outcome after wide resection for plantar fibromatosis. METHODS: A total of 12 patients, 2 to 13 years after wide resection, were assessed for local and magnetic resonance imaging tomographic signs of recurrence at the clinical follow-up. In addition, a systematic review of the literature was conducted. RESULTS: After 7.8 years (2-13), 2 patients (17%) suffered a recurrence. At the last follow-up, median Foot Functional Index was 1 (0-66) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 95 (44-100). Six studies with 109 feet (92 patients) were included in the systematic review. The recurrence rate depends on the width of the resection: 67% after local resection, 42% after wide resection, and 27% after fasciectomy. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic plantar fibromatosis, we recommend a wide resection or fasciectomy over a local resection because of the inferior recurrence rate. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: Retrospective case series.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".