Double-Wing Flap for Polysyndactyly of the Fifth Toe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of the double-wing flap in the treatment of polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe. METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2019, 31 feet (4 bilateral, 23 unilateral) with polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe (27 patients) undergoing surgery using the double-wing flap with a follow-up higher than 5 years were included consecutively and retrospectively. Postoperatively, the toe function, slope and height of the reconstructed web were assessed in all feet and the measurements of the 23 unilateral polysyndactyly were compared with the normal side. D'Arcangelo criterion was used to grade the quality of the toe webbing and Vancouver Scar Scale score describes the quality of scar in all patients. RESULTS: The patients were followed up for 5.1 to 8.3 years, a mean of 6.2 years. Two patients (2 feet) experienced web creep as a long-term complication, while the remaining feet showed no significant complications such as flexion contractures, angulation deformity or clinically significant keloid formation. The toe abduction, the slope and height of the reconstructed web of the 23 unilateral polysyndactyly showed no statistically significant difference compared with the normal side. Based on D'Arcangelo's criterion, 23 webs were rated as good, 6 as fair, and 2 as poor. The median Vancouver Scar Scale score was [1 (1, 2)]. CONCLUSIONS: The technique is a simple, safe, and easily performed method, which does not require skin grafts. It could be an alternative in the treatment of polysyndactyly of the fifth toe fused with the fourth toe, especially in cases with high cosmetic priority.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".