Outcomes Associated with Moberg and Modified Moberg Flaps in Thumb Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Appropriate thumb function is critical as it is makes up approximately 40% of the hand's function leading to the greatest influence in activities of daily living (ADLs). Local flaps are the primary option for thumb reconstruction, of which the Moberg flap has been reported to have the added advantage of its advancement capacity relative to other flaps. This systematic review aims to describe the outcomes of the Moberg advancement flap and its associated modifications for coverage of palmar thumb defects. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the conduct of this systematic review. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve relevant citations. Title and abstract as well as full-text assessment were performed in duplicate. Full texts were extracted by one reviewer and data extracted was confirmed by a second. Complication rates and overall means were calculated for the appropriate outcomes. Results: A total of 1,794 citations were retrieved; 15 papers were retained, including 169 patients. The overall mean follow-up was 28.6 months (n = 5 studies). In 136 patients, there was 100% flap viability (n = 12 studies). With regard to thumb aesthetics, 92% (59/64 patients) had favourable outcomes (n = 6 studies). No evidence of postoperative flexion contractures (n = 0/56 patients, 5 studies) was found. Cold intolerance occurred at a rate of 29.8% (n = 17/57, 4 studies) and the infection rate was 10.3% (6/58 patients, 3 studies). Conclusions: Moberg/modified Moberg flaps are a safe option for thumb reconstruction given their associated postoperative outcome and complication profile. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".