Factors Affecting Appearance after Thumb Polydactyly Reconstruction – A Caregiver’s Perspective in an Asian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current research on thumb polydactyly reconstruction focusses primarily on clinical evaluations. Details on aesthetic outcomes are relatively lacking. This study aims to address this gap by: (1) investigating the effectiveness of surgical treatment in achieving symmetrical thumb size, length and girth; (2) assessing aesthetic outcomes from a caregiver’s perspective and (3) identifying key factors that influence aesthetic outcomes to inform strategies to improve surgical reconstruction. Methods: Patients who underwent thumb polydactyly reconstruction were recalled for assessment. Objective measurements of both the reconstructed and unaffected thumbs were taken. Surgical scars were evaluated by measuring their length and using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). To assess the appearance of the reconstructed thumbs, we used the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) through surveys completed by the primary caregiver of each patient. Caregivers also provided reasons for any unsatisfactory appearance outcomes and we correlated these with objective factors. Results: This study included 26 paediatric patients with 29 reconstructed thumbs. The mean VAS score for overall thumb appearance was 7.8 ± 2.2. While surgical treatment achieved symmetry in most anthropometric measures, reconstructed thumbs had smaller nail plates and greater joint angulation. Caregiver assessment of thumb width was closely related to the objective interphalangeal joint (IPJ) girth measurements, and perceived excessive angulation was related to the IPJ angle. Symmetry was not associated with nail fold width or scar location. However, perceived scar prominence was linked to VSS score and scar location. Conclusions: Thumb polydactyly reconstruction achieves symmetry in size, length and girth, but nail plate size and joint angulation remain significant challenges. Despite this, caregivers are generally satisfied with the overall appearance. Attention should be focussed on improving thumb IPJ girth, IPJ angulation and scar location to enhance overall aesthetic outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".