Experience with Cemented Large Segment Endoprostheses for Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Published reports dealing with tumor prosthesis have yet to establish a clear advantage of using either cemented or cementless implants. We examined the outcome and complications with modular cemented implants in 135 patients identified from our database to strengthen the argument for routine use of cemented constructs. The minimum followup was 1.4 months (mean, 57 months; median, 47 months; range, 1.4-157 months). The majority of patients (104) had sarcoma. The complications included: 11 infections, three of which underwent amputation and one a stem revision; eight local recurrences, five of which underwent amputation; three hip dislocations; and three incidents of shoulder instability. One periprosthetic femur fracture was stabilized operatively. There was no aseptic loosening or stem fracture. The 5-year survival rates for distal femoral and proximal humeral replacements were 84% and 70%; the 10-year survival rates were 79% and 59%. The 5-year survival rates for proximal femur and proximal tibia replacements were 78% and 37%. Average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 scores and Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores were 21.5 and 73% for proximal femur, 28.1 and 67% for distal femur, and 21 and 78% for proximal humerus. The survival of the endoprostheses related to site of bone resection. Cemented constructs of modern design in the context of tumor surgery provide good short-term results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".