The BioPro Thumb Carpometacarpal Hemiarthroplasty: Case Series and Surgical Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis is painful and debilitating. Here, we explore outcomes of a modular, press-fit thumb CMC hemiarthroplasty prosthesis (BioPro). This surgical option permits minimal bone resection, sparing the trapezium, hence allowing revision options if necessary. A retrospective review of all cases of the modular thumb CMC implants performed at one community US center between 2018 and 2021 were included and invited for email or telephone review. Electronic records were examined for demographics, patient outcomes, and morbidity. Eleven patients underwent 11 thumb CMC joint hemiarthroplasties, mean age was 64.8 years (SD: 7.68 y), with 6 females. Six received surgery on their dominant extremity. Two were manual workers (both in the medical field), 6 office-based, 2 retired, and 1 homemaker. The preoperative median pain score (Visual Analog Score) was 8/10 (range: 5 to 10), reducing to 1/10 (range: 1 to 10) ( P =0.000033) with a median follow-up of 23 months (range: 13 to 39 mo). In all, 8/11 patients reported they would recommend this surgery to friends and family and opt for the same surgery on their contralateral hand if necessary. One patient reported persistent pain a year postoperatively. On review, the head of the implant was placed too deep into the trapezium. Another center found that this patient had a postoperative trapezium fracture and underwent revision with implant removal and conversion to a suspension arthroplasty. At 12 months, 10/11 thumb CMC hemiarthroplasty showed good pain relief, function, and patient satisfaction. The BioPro has a low risk of subluxation and allows salvage options to remain available should failure occur.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".