Cemented Rotating Hinge Endoprosthesis for Limb Salvage of Distal Femur Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We retrospectively ascertained the outcomes and complications with a cemented rotating hinge implant. Implant failure was defined as amputation of the affected limb and revision of part or all of the components. We included 77 consecutive distal femoral replacements performed between 1989 and 2004. The mean age was 42 years (range, 12-87 years) and the mean length of followup was 52 months (range, 1.5-157 months). Five-year implant survival was 84% and 10-year survival was 79%. There were 67 bone sarcomas, two soft tissue sarcomas and eight metastatic carcinomas. At followup, 54 patients had no evidence of disease, 16 were alive with disease, and seven were dead from disease. Six patients had deep infection, two of which required amputations. There were five local recurrences; three needed amputation and two soft-tissue excisions only. Three patients sustained a tibial bearing fracture and one required replacement of loose bumper. No revision was performed for stem loosening, stem fracture, or bushing wear. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 scores averaged 30 and Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores averaged 77.6 at latest followup. Cemented endoprosthesis is a reliable procedure after resection of the distal femur for tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV (case series).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".