Comparison between standard ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition vs adding an interference screw for flexor carpi radialis fixation. A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) procedure requires a trapeziectomy with the reconstruction of the palmar oblique ligament. Introduction of an interference screw (IS) during the tendon interposition is intended to improve tensioning of the beak ligament reconstruction and limit subsidence which may increase stability for the patient postoperatively. Non-inferiority, clinical, blinded, and randomized trial was performed. Twenty patients were randomized to one of the two treatment groups (Standard LRTI vs LRTI + IS). Four patients did not receive surgery during the allotted time. Finally, 16 patients (8 per group) had completed follow-up data at the end of the designated 2-year follow up. Equivalent functional and radiographic outcomes were found. Trapezial height at 2 years was 4.44 mm for standard LRTI and 3.83 mm for LRTI with screw. At the end of the follow up period both groups had comparable grip strength. Mean improvement of DASH score, VAS and EQ5D was similar in both groups, showing good outcomes for both procedures. Ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition with and without interference screw has shown equivalent results in a 2-year follow-up related to stability and functional outcomes. Interference screw is a safe and reliable technique with no difference in pain or complication rates. Therapeutic II.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".