Phalangeal Fractures Treated by Tendinitaxis: A Narrative Review of Principles, Techniques, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phalangeal fractures are common injuries sustained to the hand which frequently lead to stiffness, malunion, and functional compromise due to the close relationship between bone, tendon, and soft tissues with the digital skeleton. Management strategies vary, from immobilization, to closed reduction and open reduction techniques with the goal to restore bony alignment and eventual range of motion and hand function. It is generally accepted that surgical fixation methods, given the additional disruption of surrounding soft tissues, is associated with increased risk of tendon adhesions and potential reduced range of motion outcomes. Traction of fracture fragments to restore alignment can be achieved externally through skin traction and use of orthoses, internally via fixation apparatus, or a combination of the two with skeletal traction. The restoration of bony alignment is achieved through the principle of tendinotaxis. Tendinotaxis is a principle of fracture reduction that uses tension generated by tendon forces to realign fracture fragments, offering a minimally invasive technique to achieve stable alignment while preserving soft tissue integrity. This narrative review examines the anatomical basis, biomechanics, clinical indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes of tendinotaxis in the management of proximal, middle, and distal phalangeal fractures. Tendinotaxis techniques have shown favorable outcomes in comminuted, intra-articular, and unstable fractures. Evidence suggests that tendinotaxis via traction can effectively restore bony alignment, and minimize surgical soft tissue trauma, restoring normal joint motion. Available literature demonstrates improved range of motion, reduced rates of stiffness, and lower complications as compared with conventional open reduction methods. Further high-quality comparative studies are needed to standardize protocols and define indications. Tendinotaxis remains a valuable technique in carefully selected phalangeal fractures where the preservation of soft tissue and early mobilization are essential to functional recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".