Cost Analysis of Functional Restoration Surgery for Extremity Soft-Tissue Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limb-sparing surgery, consisting of wide-margin tumor resection and preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy/chemotherapy, has become the surgical treatment of choice for extremity sarcomas. However, adequate tumor resection can sometimes compromise crucial limb function, necessitating functional restoration surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost impact and functional outcomes of such procedures. METHODS: Patients receiving either functional restoration surgery or soft-tissue-only reconstruction following extremity soft-tissue sarcoma excision were identified. Patients were then compared along several dimensions: overall length of stay and its subdivisions, surgical time, and total charges and its subdivisions. Patients' functional outcomes were assessed with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients who underwent 69 limb-sparing procedures were identified. Fifteen of these procedures (eight upper extremity, seven lower extremity) required functional restoration surgery; 54 of these procedures (13 upper extremity, 41 lower extremity) required only soft-tissue coverage. In the upper extremity, there was a statistically significant increase in overall length of stay (2.8 days) and its subdivisions, surgical time (3.7 hours), and total charges (12,484 dollars) and its subdivisions associated with performing functional restoration surgery. In lower extremity cases, statistically significant increases were determined in only the total charges (9190 dollars) and medical supply charges (13,204 dollars) following functional restoration. Patients who underwent functional restoration surgery had better postoperative function (mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, 82 versus 80), but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although functional restoration surgery is more costly than soft-tissue reconstruction alone, the authors believe that the associated better functional outcome justifies its performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".