Survival, Local Recurrence, and Function After Pelvic Limb Salvage at 23 to 38 Years of Followup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant pelvic tumors frequently pose challenges to surgeons owing to complex pelvic anatomy and local extension. External hemipelvectomy frequently allows adequate margins but is associated with substantial morbidity and reduced function. Limb salvage is an alternative approach when adequate margins can be achieved, but long-term function and survival are unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined the long-term survival; development of late local recurrence and metastases; function; and need for further reconstructive procedures for patients undergoing limb salvage for treatment of malignant pelvic tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 60 patients treated with pelvic limb salvage before 1989. We reviewed medical records and sent questionnaires incorporating Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage scores to the 38 patients who had no evidence of disease in 1989; 15 patients responded. Minimum followup was 23 years (median, 30 years; range, 23-38 years). RESULTS: Overall survival rate of the 60 patients was 45%: 100% Stage IA, 75% Stage IB, 31% Stage IIB, and 0% Stage III were alive. Late local recurrence developed only in patients with chondrosarcoma (three of 24). Two patients developed late distant bone metastases. Function declined: the MSTS score of the 15 patients who completed a questionnaire decreased 23%. Two patients had further reconstructive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: At 23- to 38-year followup, we believe pelvic limb salvage is a reasonable treatment if satisfactory margins can be achieved. If a patient with pelvic sarcoma is free of disease 5 years after sarcoma resection, the subsequent risk of death from sarcoma appears to be low. Late local recurrence remains a risk in patients with pelvic chondrosarcoma. Patient-reported function of the salvaged limb declined with long-term followup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 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".