Long-term follow-up of unoperated, nonscissoring spiral metacarpal fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spiral metacarpal fractures can result in shortening of the metacarpal shaft, which may lead to extension lag at the metacarpophalangeal joint and reduced grip strength. These fractures have been surgically treated to restore metacarpal length; however, there are complications associated with surgery, postoperative management and wound healing, which further threaten power recovery in the hand. Objective To determine the effect of conservative management of unoperated, nonscissoring spiral metacarpal fractures. Methods Sixty-one consecutive patients presenting with nonscissoring spiral metacarpal fractures were treated nonoperatively and studied prospectively to determine the natural history of their power outcome. Thumb fractures and those requiring surgical intervention for scissoring were excluded. Results Follow-up data of a minimum of five months (mean follow-up 87 weeks) were available for 13 patients. Mean grip strength at final follow-up was 36.18 kg on the uninjured side and 36.58 kg on the injured side. The strength-difference values did not differ significantly from zero (P=0.72). Conclusion The loss of metacarpal length associated with these fractures may not cause a power deficit sufficiently large to significantly affect grip strength and functional recovery in the hand. A prospective randomized controlled trial of operated versus unoperated, nonscissoring metacarpal fractures is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".