Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Clinical Effectiveness of Collagenase Injection (Xiaflex <sup>®</sup> ) and Palmar Fasciectomy in the Management of Dupuytren's Contracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Limited palmar fasciectomy (LPF) and collagenase injection (CI) are the most common procedures to manage symptoms of Dupuytren's Disease. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to directly compare patient outcomes 12 months following CI and LPF. Methods: Twenty-two patients with Dupuytren's Disease were randomized to either LPF or CI. The primary outcome was health state measured by the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were health status (The Health Utility Index-3), function (The Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main and The Southampton Dupuytren's Scoring Scheme), and range of motion (ROM) of treated digits. Measurements were collected at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-procedure. Results: Thirteen patients were randomized to the LPF and eight patients to the CI group. Most patients (85.7%) were male; the average age of the sample was 65.3 years. No statistically significant difference in the MHQ (mean difference [MD]: −12.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −30.0, 5.2)), SDSS (.9 (−4.0, 5.8)), URAM (−.9 (−14.4, 12.6)) or HUI-3 (−.04, −.2, .2)) was found between groups 12-months post-operatively. There was no statistically significant difference in 12-month loss of extension between groups at the MCP (−16.9 (−35.4, 1.7) or PIP (−2.9 (−22.9, 17.1) joints. Three CI patients and 1 LPF patient developed a contracture in the same digit requiring surgery. Conclusion: Results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size. Available data suggests both techniques are reasonable for managing Dupuytren's Disease. Considerations for future RCTs are provided.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".