Incisional paresthesia following clavicle plate fixation: does it matter to patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Operative management of clavicle fractures is increasingly common. In the context of explaining the risks and benefits of surgery, understanding the impact of incisional numbness as it relates to the patient experience is key to shared decision making. This study aims to determine the prevalence, extent, and recovery of sensory changes associated with supraclavicular nerve injury after open reduction and plate internal fixation of middle or lateral clavicle shaft fractures. METHODS: Eighty-six patients were identified retrospectively and completed a patient experience survey assessing sensory symptoms, perceived post-operative function, and satisfaction. Correlations between demographic factors and outcomes, as well as subgroup analyses were completed to identify factors impacting patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Ninety percent of patients experienced sensory changes post-operatively. Numbness was the most common symptom (64%) and complete resolution occurred in 32% of patients over an average of 19 months. Patients who experienced burning were less satisfied overall with the outcome of their surgery whereas those who were informed of the risk of sensory changes pre-operatively were more satisfied overall. CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative sensory disturbance is common. While most patients improve, some symptoms persist in the majority of patients without significant negative effects on satisfaction. Patients should always be advised of the risk of persistent sensory alterations around the surgical site to increase the likelihood of their satisfaction post-operatively.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".