Separation of congenital embryonic syndactylies in children: dorsal or volar flap? About a comparative retrospective series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital syndactylies account for 1 to 2 out of 2000 birth defects. Although several types of syndactylies exist, we only studied embryonic syndactylies. The goal of our study was to compare 2 types of coverage flap for the reconstruction of the finger web spaces: a volar flap described by Blauth and a dorsal flap described by Gilbert. Between 1993 and 2015, children affected by simple and complex syndactylies (partial or complete) were treated in 2 french pediatric hospitals and were selected for our analytic, comparative, retrospective review. The 2 hospitals used different surgical techniques: one used a volar flap described by Blauth and the other a dorsal flap described by Gilbert. The children were followed up to look for signs according to the stages of the Classification of Withey and to evaluate a global result according to the score of Withey. Our secondary criteria of judgement were the aspect of the surgical scar according to the VSS (Vancouver Scar Scale) and the satisfaction of the parents and children. The age of the children, need for a surgical revision and time of last follow- up were also studied. We found statistically significant differences between group I (volar flap) and group II (dorsal flap) in favor of the volar flap: higher scores of Withey (even when the number of commissures was increasing) and better VSS (regardless of the number of web spaces treated). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of age, follow-up, or rate of surgical revision. All in all, the volar flap presented less sequelae in terms of scar retraction. Regardless of the flap used, the cosmetic results of the full-thickness skin graft used impacted the result both on the receiving site (dyschromia, hairiness) and the donor site.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".