Proximal Row Carpectomy With Soft Tissue Interposition: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with soft tissue interposition arthroplasty (STIA) presents an alternative approach to addressing wrist arthritis patterns involving the capitate and/or lunate fossa, in lieu of wrist arthrodesis. This systematic review aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and techniques associated with PRC-STIA in patients with advanced wrist arthritis. We conducted a systematic review using databases including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria involved articles reporting outcomes of patients who underwent PRC-STIA with at least 1 relevant outcome. The analysis encompassed 8 studies involving 106 patients (108 wrists) meeting the inclusion criteria. A majority of patients were men (69%, n = 88), with a mean age of 54.4 ± 12.7 years and an average follow-up of 4.8 ± 6.3 years. Dorsal capsule was the most commonly interposed tissue (63%, 5 out of 8 studies). Patients receiving STIA achieved comparable patient-reported outcome measures scores to those undergoing PRC alone. Postoperative pain, measured by the Visual Analog Scale, averaged 3.7 ± 0.6. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score averaged 27.8 ± 8, while the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score averaged 41.5 ± 25.9. Five complications were reported in three studies. The addition of STIA into PRC for patients with capitate and/or lunate fossa cartilage degeneration yielded outcomes akin to traditional PRC, improving wrist function, pain, and grip strength in a safe and straightforward manner. Future research should prioritize high-quality comparative studies, extended follow-up periods, and standardized core outcome measures for a more comprehensive understanding of its role in wrist arthritis treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".