Long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction following wrist ganglion aspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is a strong body of evidence addressing short-term outcomes following wrist ganglion aspiration; however, few studies have investigated long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction. Objective To evaluate patient satisfaction and the long-term rate of recurrence following wrist ganglion aspiration. Methods Charts of all patients with a wrist ganglion treated by a single surgeon from 2001 to 2011 were reviewed. Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from patient charts. Patients were contacted by telephone and asked to complete a questionnaire addressing recurrence, satisfaction and symptom improvement. Improvement was assessed using a Likert scale, with 1 indicating ‘significantly worse’ and 5 indicating ‘significantly improved’. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson x 2 , Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests. Results Forty-one consecutive patients were identified using hospital records; 21 (51%) consented to the telephone questionnaire. There were no differences in demographic or clinical data between patients who completed the telephone questionnaire and those who did not. The mean age at treatment was 45.3 years, mean time to follow-up was 6.3 years and 52.4% of ganglions recurred. Overall, 95% (20 of 21) of patients were satisfied with their treatment and would proceed again given the option; satisfaction was independent of recurrence. Following treatment, there was improvement in pain, function, range of motion and appearance; improvement in symptoms was independent of recurrence. Conclusions Long-term recurrence of ganglions treated with aspiration appeared to be similar to the short-term rates reported in the literature. Independent of recurrence, patients remained satisfied with aspiration and reported improvement in symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".