Outcomes of Nerve Transfers in Peroneal Nerve Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this work is to: (i) evaluate the postoperative outcomes after lower extremity nerve transfer (LENT) in patients with peroneal nerve palsy, and (ii) evaluate the patient and surgical factors that best predict successful restoration of ankle dorsiflexion following nerve transfer. Methods: A retrospective cohort of prospectively collected data included all patients who underwent LENT (2010-2018). Two independent reviewers performed data collection. Primary outcome measures were: (i) clinically with British Medical Research Council (MRC) strength assessments, and (ii) electrodiagnostically with nascent motor unit potentials. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and nonparametric statistics. Results: Nine patients (56% male, mean age 38.3, range 18-57 years) underwent LENT surgery a mean of 4.3 months following injury (range 2.2-6.4 months). Mean follow-up was 15.6 months (range 9.1-28.2 months). Postoperatively, ankle dorsiflexion ( P = .015) and ankle eversion ( P = .041) increased significantly. After surgery, 44% achieved MRC 4, 33% obtained MRC 1 motor recovery, and 22% sustained MRC 0. A shorter time to surgery was associated with significantly better outcomes ( P = .049). Conclusions: It appears that there is a bimodal distribution between responders and nonresponders to LENT for foot drop. Further research is required to elucidate patient and surgical factors that prognosticate success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".