A novel revision technique in the treatment for postoperative deviation after radial polydactyly reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative deviation (PD) is a complicated and troublesome complication after polydactyly reconstruction. We aim to investigate the clinical efficacy of a novel revision surgery, reconstruction of the balance of bone and soft tissue, treating PD after radial polydactyly reconstruction in comparison with a previous surgical plan. METHODS: We reconstructed the balance of bone and soft tissue to correct PD and the asymmetrical appearance of the thumb. At the follow-up, we used the digital circumferential ratio (reconstructive/healthy side), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score, Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand (JSSH), aesthetic scoring system (ASS) modified Tada score and range of motion (ROM) to evaluate the appearance and function outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen PD patients received our new surgical plan (NG), and 31 patients received the traditional surgical plan (CG). There was no significant difference in gender, age, site of hand and follow-up period, as well as preoperative digital circumference ratio, deviation angle of metacarpophalangeal joints (MP) and interphalangeal joint (IP). At the final follow-up, we found that digital circumference ratio, JSSH and ASS were obviously higher in NG than in CG, implying that our novel surgical plan can provide good aesthetics and excellent postoperative function. CONCLUSIONS: The reconstructive balance of bone and soft tissue can effectively improve the appearance and function of PD after polydactyly reconstruction. Mastering the indications for surgery and good microsurgical techniques are the keys to ensuring therapeutic effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".