Potential Role for Non-Salvage Procedures in the Treatment of Kienböck Disease Stage IV: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify whether non-salvage procedures can provide satisfactory and acceptable outcomes in Lichtman stage IV disease. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for English publications between 1989 and 2019 that reported stage IV-specific primary treatment outcomes. Revisions and skeletally immature patients were excluded. Data extracted were patient demographics, pain scores, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The results were pooled into 3 categories: conservative management, non-salvage, and salvage procedures. Results: Data from 24 studies (n = 114 patients) were extracted. Compared with conservative management and non-salvage treatment (joint-leveling radial osteotomies, lunate reconstruction), salvage procedures (intercarpal and radiocarpal arthrodesis, proximal row carpectomy, total wrist arthroplasty) showed significantly decreased ROM in flexion-extension arc of motion (89° vs 95° vs 73°, respectively, P = .0001) and no significant differences in grip strength as a percentage of the contralateral side (83% vs 86% vs 79%, respectively, P = .28). All reported treatments provided pain relief, ability to return to previous occupations, and variable PROMs. Conclusions: In young, active, and labor-intensive patients, motion-preserving, non-salvage options may be worth trialing as they do not preclude future salvage options.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".