Immobilization of the Wrist After Dorsal Wrist Ganglion Excision: A Systematic Review and Survey of Current Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPostoperative care after dorsal wrist ganglion (DWG) excision is highly varied. The effect of immobilization of the wrist on patient outcomes has not yet been examined.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed to determine whether wrist immobilization after DWG surgical excision is beneficial. A survey of hand surgeons in Canada was performed to sample existing practice variations in current immobilization protocols after DWG excision.ResultsA systematic review yielded 11 studies that rigidly immobilized the wrist (n = 5 open excision, n = 5 arthroscopic excision, n = 1 open or arthroscopic excision), 10 studies that used dressings to partially limit wrist motion (n = 5 open, n = 5 arthroscopic), 1 study (open) that did either of the above, and 2 studies (arthroscopic) that did not restrict wrist motion postoperatively. This ranged from 48 hours to 2 weeks in open DWG excision and 5 days to 3 weeks in arthroscopic DWG excision. The survey of Canadian hand surgeons had a similarly divided result of those who chose to immobilize the wrist fully (41%), partially (14%), or not at all (55%). Most surgeons surveyed who immobilized the wrist postoperatively did so for 1 to 2 weeks.ConclusionThe systematic review and survey of Canadian hand surgeons reveal that hand surgeons are divided regarding the need to immobilize the wrist after DWG excision. In terms of functional outcome, there is no compelling data to suggest 1 strategy is superior. The time frame for immobilization when undertaken was short at 2 weeks or less.The systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016050877).
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 | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".