Usage of Dermal Regeneration Templates (Pelnac) for Coverage of Exposed Hand Tendons in Acute Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The loss of soft tissue coverage of tendons is a challenging reconstructive problem after acute hand trauma. Subsequent tendon adhesions and the loss of range of movement in addition to the poor aesthetic outcome and donor site scarring should be avoided when deciding the plan of management. Pelnac is one of the commonly used skin substitutes in reconstructive surgery that can be used for coverage of exposed tendons, but the postoperative functional outcome needs to be addressed in detail. Methods: Twenty-six patients with acute isolated tendon injuries distal to the wrist joint were included. Two-stage reconstructive procedures were performed; the first one was the application of Pelnac. The second stage was carried out after the complete integration of Pelnac via the application of a split-thickness graft. The function outcome assesses the return of the normal range of motion to the affected hand and the QuickDASH score questionnaire. The aesthetic outcome was assessed using the Vancouver scar scale. Results: The Pelnac was integrated in 100% of cases, with complete grafts taken in 22 of 26 patients. The mean QuickDASH score was 20.5 ± 15.7, and mean Vancouver scar scale was 3.53 ± 3.2. The full range of motion returned in 22 of 26 patients. Conclusions: Using Pelnac to cover the exposed hand tendons in an acute setting is a convenient and efficient procedure with minimal morbidity. It can offer a good option for their coverage with preservation of hand function and acceptable aesthetic outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".