Nerve Transfers in the Management of Femoral Nerve Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe the effectiveness of nerve transfers for restoring quadriceps motor function in patients with femoral nerve palsy. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception to June 2023 for any English language, primary literature investigating nerve transfers for femoral nerve palsy. Data were extracted for study and intervention characteristics, as well as clinical outcomes, including preoperative and postoperative knee extension strength, electrodiagnostic studies, functional outcomes, adverse events, and donor site morbidity. The primary outcome was defined as return of knee extension equivalent to or greater than a grade 4-on the Medical Research Council scale. Eighteen studies with a total of 40 patients were included. The most common nerve donor was the obturator nerve in 17 studies with 37 patients, followed by the nerve to sartorius in two studies (10 patients). Significant variations in procedures and outcomes reported were observed. There were no studies that reported an effect on ambulation due to donor weakness. Based on the available literature, nerve transfer appears to be an effective treatment for restoring quadriceps function in this population, with 79% of patients in our study achieving at minimum 4-/5 Medical Research Council grade power.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".