Toe-to-finger transfer for post-traumatic reconstruction of the fingerless hand.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of toe-to-finger transfers (TFTs) for post-traumatic reconstruction of the fingerless hand. DESIGN: A case series. SETTING: A regional trauma centre. PATIENTS: Eight men, mean age was 36 years (range from 25-59 yr), who had lost all the fingers from a hand due to a crush-degloving injury (6 patients), frostbite (1 patient) or a burn injury (1 patient). INTERVENTION: TFT. Twelve TFTs were cone and the mean time from injury to reconstruction was 17.2 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective (range of motion, moving 2-point discrimination, grip strength, key pinch, Jebsen-Taylor hand assessment, return to work) and subjective (activities of daily living and a questionnaire) measures. RESULTS: Eleven of the 12 transfers survived. Six of the 7 in whom the transfer was successful were available for follow-up (mean 45 mo). Range of motion was 10 degrees at the distal interphalangeal joint, 18 degrees at the proximal interphalangeal joint and 59 degrees at the metacarpophalangeal joint. Sensation was protective in all. Grip strength and key pinch were 26.1% and 70.2% of the contralateral hand respectively. Jebsen-Taylor assessment indicated that basic activities were possible but slowed. All 6 patients returned to work and could perform 92.6% of the activities of daily living unassisted. Hand and foot symptoms were mild. Two-thirds were appearance conscious, 5 of the 6 went on to altered vocations and all reported overall satisfaction as high. CONCLUSION: This study supports TFT for reconstruction of the fingerless hand in that, although transferred toe function may be poorer than a normal finger, the hand is restored to a useful, sensate and versatile functional unit, such that global hand and patient function, as well as patient satisfaction, are very good.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".