MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2025· article· en· W4415902171 on OpenAlexaff
Charles R. Reiter, Wesley Lemons, James Satalich, David J. Cinats

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristCompartment (ship)TendonPlating (geology)RADIUSEntrapmentCapsuleFixation (population genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Case ReportsSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207