Indications of Microsurgery in Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Sarcomas are uncommon tumors and free-margin surgical resection remains the single most important treatment in the curative therapy of soft tissue sarcomas. Refinements in surgical techniques have led to increased function preservation and limb salvage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of patients (n = 41) who underwent microsurgical soft tissue reconstruction subsequent to resection of soft tissue sarcoma during the period 1998 to 2010 were reviewed and compared with a general nonmicrosurgery group (n = 188) in relation to clinicopathological characteristics, surgical procedures, postoperative complications, time until start of adjuvant radiation, functional outcome (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, TESS), local recurrence, free survival, and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (age range: 23 to 95 years) received a total of 42 free flaps. When compared with the general nonmicrosurgery group, these patients presented significant differences with regard to location, histological grade, and neoadjuvant treatments. Complications were encountered in 10 cases, including 3 patients with complete flap loss and 1 patient with partial flap loss; other complications were cervical fistulae, knee arthritis, nonconsolidation, and wound infection. Extremity salvage was achieved in 90% (19/21) of limb sarcomas, with these patients showing adequate postoperative ambulation (TESS 77 ± 16) and adequate use of the upper extremity (TESS 66 ± 26). Two patients underwent amputation after recurrence. Disease-specific survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 79.49% and 76.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The microsurgical repair of sarcoma defects is a reliable option that, though not free of complications, is necessary in selected cases such as patients receiving neoadjuvant treatments and those with head and neck location and high-grade tumors. The procedure enables both adequate oncosurgical resection and function preservation. Our microsurgical sarcoma reconstruction data, based on an observation period of 12 years and presenting the results of 42 free tissue transfers in 41 patients, adds further evidence to the previously published smaller 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".