Outcomes at 3 Months of a Place and Active Hold Method of Flexor Tendon Rehabilitation Following Zone II Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that outcomes following a place and active hold (PAH) are better than a passive flexion protocol after a two-strand core-suture repair of flexor tendons injuries in zone II. This study aims to determine the outcomes of a PAH protocol of flexor tendon rehabilitation following a four-strand core-suture plus an epitendinous suture repair of the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) combined with a simple horizontal loop repair of the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS). Methods: This is a prospective study of patients with complete injury to both flexor tendons in zone II. All tendons were repaired with a simple horizontal loop for FDS and four-strand core-suture plus epitendinous suture for FDP. The PAH protocol was used postoperatively for 6 weeks. The outcome was evaluated using flexion contracture and total active motion (TAM), interpreted using Strickland criteria and categorised as excellent, good, fair and poor at 6 weeks and 3 months. The linear regression model was used to determine predictors of outcomes. Results: The study included 32 patients with flexor tendon injury in 46 fingers. No repairs ruptured, and 24 (52%) digits achieved good or excellent motion 6 weeks after surgery using the Strickland criteria. According to the Strickland criteria, 41 (89%) digits ranked as excellent and good with no poor result at a 3-month follow-up. Four patients had 5–10° of flexion contracture. Age was the predictor of TAM at 6 weeks and accounted for 13% of its variation. Improvement of TAM from 6 weeks to 3 months was related to age and flexion contracture at 6 weeks. Conclusions: The PAH protocol can be considered a safe technique for flexor rehabilitation after four-strand core-suture repair of FDP in zone II. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic)
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".