EN BLOC TOTAL SACRECTOMY PERFORMED IN A SINGLE STAGE THROUGH A POSTERIOR APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Total sacrectomies are performed for extensive en bloc tumor resections. Exposure traditionally combines a posterior approach with a laparotomy to facilitate vascular control. We present a case of a total en bloc sacrectomy performed entirely through the posterior approach, thereby avoiding the need for a laparotomy. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old man presented with sacral pain and loss of bowel and bladder function. A large sacral mass was identified and submitted to biopsy. Results were consistent with an osteoblastoma, although osteosarcoma could not be excluded on pathological examination. The patient was taken to the operating room for a total sacrectomy and en bloc resection of the mass. TECHNIQUE: Lateral iliac osteotomies were performed, followed by an L5-S1 discectomy and resection of the annulus, thus mobilizing the sacrum. Gradual distraction of the interspace coupled with upward traction of the sacrum provided an anterior exposure through which the internal iliac vessels were controlled, dissected, and divided. A combined transperineal approach completed the posterior dissection and the tumor was delivered en bloc. Lumbopelvic reconstruction was performed simultaneously. CONCLUSION: With the use of interspace distraction and sacral elevation to facilitate vascular control, a total sacrectomy was performed without the need for the anterior exposure of a laparotomy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".