Clinical Results of Arthroscopic Resection of Dorsal Wrist Ganglion with a Minimum of 3 Years Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Ganglion cysts are the most common benign tumors of the wrist. Their arthroscopic resection is becoming common. However, there are a limited number of studies comparing arthroscopic and open surgeries. This study evaluated the subjective and objective results of arthroscopy with a minimum of 3 years follow-up. Patients and Methods Patients with dorsal wrist ganglion who underwent arthroscopic ganglionectomy were evaluated regarding pain (using visual analog scale) and satisfaction as subjective results. We also evaluated their scar (with the Vancouver scar scale), range of motion, and recurrence as objective results. Results There were 20 patients in the study. Mean of follow-up time was 52.5 months. Recurrence rate was 5%, and visual analog scale of pain decreased from 3.7 to 0.5 at the final follow-up. Sixteen patients were completely satisfied, three patients were partially satisfied, and one patient was unsatisfied. The mean of Vancouver scar scale was 1.4 (range of 0–3). Improvement in range of flexion and extension of the wrist was significant without a significant complication. Conclusion Arthroscopic excision of dorsal wrist ganglion in the way described in this study is a safe and effective method that improves pain and range of motion of the wrist without major complications. The rate of recurrence was less than those reported for open surgery in long-term follow-up. The surgery scar has a promising score in Vancouver scar scale.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".