MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391252407 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000011306

Direct Repair of Ruptured Nerve Stump to Middle Trunk for Restoration of Extrinsic Finger Extension in Total Brachial Plexus Injuries

2024· article· en· W4391252407 on OpenAlexaff
Yun-hao Xue, Shufeng Wang, Jingjing Hu, Wenjun Li, Feng Li, Bhatia Anil, Pengcheng Li, Yaobin Yin, Fangfang Duan, Qipei Wei

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrunkBrachial plexusWristSurgeryElbowAnatomyRadial nerveUpper trunkMedian nerveMiddle fingerThumb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Attempts to restore independent hand function in total brachial plexus injuries (TBPIs) have often failed due to inconsistent results of finger extension reconstruction. An innovative technique is described to achieve this effect by direct neurorrhaphy of residual (ruptured) roots with the middle trunk. METHODS: Direct coaptation of the ruptured roots to the middle trunk and, simultaneously, transferring the anterior division of the middle trunk to the posterior division of the lower trunk was performed in 64 patients with TBPI. The return of extension of the elbow, wrist, and fingers was monitored. RESULTS: Excellent and good muscle strength of finger extension were noted in 45.3% of cases. The patients were divided into group A (>32 years) and group B (≤32 years) according to receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The difference of excellent and good rates of finger and wrist extension muscle strengths between the 2 groups was statistically significant (χ 2 = 4.635, P = 0.031; χ 2 = 6.615, P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Direct neurorrhaphy of ruptured nerve root stumps with the middle trunk could achieve satisfactory results for finger extension in TBPI for patients ≤32 years old. Long nerve defects (4 to 6.5 cm) could be overcome by freeing the nerve and adducting the arm against the trunk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207