MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fingertip Regeneration with Stacked Biomaterials and Injectable Platelet-rich Fibrin: An Exploratory Prospective Study

2022· article· en· W4306177762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Srinjoy Saha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomaterialTendonSurgeryFibrinVisual analogue scaleProspective cohort studyPlatelet-rich fibrinOrthopedic surgeryPatient satisfactionRegeneration (biology)Biomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Fingertips with some nail intact are notable for regrowth. Earlier studies using occlusive dressings and biomaterials documented good healing. Aims: To explore the usefulness of single-staged stacking of inner layers of biomaterial, covered with bi-layered biomaterial, and weekly injectable platelet-rich fibrin (iPRF) in regenerating fingertips. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, open-label, exploratory study was performed from May 2019 through June 2021 on patients presenting with injured fingertips and exposed bone/tendon/hardware, including destroyed nails. Avoiding flap surgeries, both natural collagen-GAG (Integra) and synthetic polyurethane (BTM) biomaterials were used along with iPRF injections. Primary endpoint was complete fingertip coverage by secondary intention. Secondary endpoints were percentages of biomaterial-take and scarring, QuickDASH scores, 2-point discrimination, and patient-reported satisfaction at least 3-months postoperatively. Results: All 11 enrolled patients had exposed bone/tendon/K-wire over their fingertips. Integra was applied in 54.55%, and BTM in 45.45%. Biomaterials ‘took’ completely in all patients. Size of fingertip defects ranged between 2.25-7 cm2, median 3.75cm2. Nails appeared destroyed in 54.6% patients. Out of 10 patients completing this study, 2-point discrimination over regenerated fingertips was almost equivalent to opposite side (Median 4mm, Range 4-6mm). Fingertip appearances measured by 13-point Vancouver Scar Scale were nearly normal (Median 0/13, Range 0-5). Hand functions recovered fully, with QuickDASH scores measuring 0/100 in all patients. Patient-reported satisfaction measured by 1-10 visual analog scale was excellent (Median 9.5, Range 8-10). Conclusion: Single-staged stacking of biomaterials over the destroyed fingertips followed by weekly iPRF injections appeared to regenerate fingertips well, even in severe finger injuries with destroyed nails.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207