Clinical, Radiographic, and Patient-Perceived Outcome After Radial Hemi-Wrist Arthroplasty With a New Implant: 20 Cases With 5-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal component loosening is a common mode of failure in total wrist arthroplasty (TWA). A radial hemi-wrist arthroplasty (RHWA) has the potential to avoid problems related to the distal component in TWA. The aim of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes following surgical treatment with a new RHWA design. METHODS: In this pilot study of 20 consecutive RHWAs, patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively for range of motion, grip strength, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, and functional scoring using Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Radiographs were analyzed at 12 months and 5 years (mean, 5.1 years) postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 46 secondary surgeries were undertaken in 16 wrists, including 7 revisions. Another 6 patients are waiting for revision to radiocarpal arthrodesis. In non-revised patients, the DASH and PRWE scores improved, and wrist range of motion remained largely unchanged except for wrist flexion, which decreased. The VAS pain score during activity was reduced, and hand grip strength remained largely unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The new implant resulted in improved functional scoring and improved VAS pain scores in non-revised patients, but many cases needed secondary surgery due to persistent pain. The high revision rate is a major concern, and further use of the implant in its current form cannot be recommended.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".