Salvage of the proximal femur following pathological fractures involving benign bone tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the surgical treatment of patients with a pathologic fracture through a benign tumor of the proximal femur to determine if there is a difference in local recurrence, complications or functional outcome compared to patients with tumors in the same location without pathologic fractures. METHODS: From 1989-2010, of 97 patients, 29 presented with a pathologic fracture (PF) through a proximal femoral benign bone tumor and 68 presented without a pathologic fracture (NPF). Outcomes of the two groups were compared in terms of surgical management, postoperative complications, local recurrence and functional scores. RESULTS: Fibrous dysplasia, giant cell tumor of bone and chondroblastoma were the most common subtypes. Most patients were managed with joint preservation in both PF (86.2%) and NPF (98.5%) groups (P = 0.03). Local recurrence risk was similar for patients in the PF (10.3%) and NPF (8.8%) groups. Mean follow-up was 105.7 months (P = 0.8). Functional outcome scores were high in both groups and not statistically significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pathologic fractures through a benign bone tumor of the proximal femur can be successfully treated with curettage, burring, bone grafting and internal fixation without increasing the risk of local recurrence or negatively impacting functional outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".