The Use of a Tendon Protector Sheath for Prevention of First Extensor Compartment Tendon Adhesions after Radial Column Plating for Distal Radius Fracture: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although volar locking plates are the most commonly used implant method for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of distal radius fractures, complex fractures may require the use of fragment-specific fixation. Radial column plates are placed adjacent to the tendons of the first extensor compartment and may lead to tendon entrapment. This case report demonstrates the use of TenoGlide Tendon Protector Sheet to prevent the formation of tendon adhesions after ORIF of a distal radius fracture. Case Report: A healthy 35-year-old female suffered a distal radius fracture after a fall from a horse. The patient underwent ORIF with a volar locking and radial column plate, but subsequently developed limited thumb extension postoperatively. Reoperation for hardware removal and tenolysis was performed with a TenoGlide Tendon Protector Sheet placed between the first extensor compartment tendons and adjacent bone. Patient regained full thumb extension by the final follow-up 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion: Bone-tendon adhesions of the first extensor compartment in the wrist are a possible complication of radial column plating for fixation of distal radius fractures. The TenoGlide Tendon Protector Sheet is effective in preventing first extensor compartment entrapment after radial column plating for distal radius fractures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".