Short-Term Outcomes of Dorsal Wrist Ganglion Excision: Is What We Are Doing Working?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to describe patient-reported pain and hand appearance 3 months following dorsal wrist ganglion excision. The secondary aims were to evaluate return to work (RTW), satisfaction with treatment, recurrence, and complications. We included 1,000 patients who had a dorsal wrist ganglion excision in a specialized center for hand and wrist disorders and completed the relevant questionnaires preoperatively. Six hundred and fifty-nine patients who also completed all relevant questionnaires 3 months postoperatively were included for the primary analysis. Data on complications and recurrence were available from patients' records for all 1,000 patients and were scored following the International Consortium of Healthcare Outcomes Complications in Hand and Wrist (ICHAW) conditions tool. Most patients (63%) experienced clinically relevant improvement in pain following dorsal wrist ganglion excision. Hand appearance improved, and 87% of the patients rated their satisfaction with treatment results as fair to excellent. Median time to RTW was 3 weeks. Any deviation from expected recovery according to the ICHAW definition was noted for 111 patients (11%), with most being minor adverse protocol deviations. Nine patients (9/111, 8%; 9/1,000, 0.9%) experienced a Grade 3 complication (e.g., complex regional pain syndrome or condition requiring additional surgery). During a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 104 patients (10.4%) had a recurrence of the dorsal wrist ganglion. This study found that open excision of dorsal wrist ganglia leads to clinically relevant pain reduction and good satisfaction in most cases. However, there was a relatively high variability in outcomes. Complication and recurrence rates were comparable to other studies and remained fairly high. It is important to consider and elaborate this to patients preoperatively to address their expectations and make an informed, consensual decision regarding the treatment. Therapeutic, Level II.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".