Internal Hemipelvectomy for Pelvic Sarcomas Using a T-incision Surgical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Internal hemipelvectomy is performed for pelvic sarcomas when the tumor can be safely resected without sacrificing the entire extremity. Wide exposure and awareness of major neurovascular structures are crucial to the success of this surgery. Various modifications on the standard utilitarian approach have been used to best achieve these goals. We reviewed our experience using the T-incision technique for 30 pelvic sarcoma resections. The minimum followup was 3.6 months (mean, 55 months; range, 3.6-185.4 months). Postoperative complications included minor complications (requiring no surgery or a simple incision and drainage with primary closure) in 27% of patients and major complications (involving a deep infection or more extensive surgical treatment) in 17%. Ninety-two percent of wound complications healed uneventfully with antibiotics and incision and drainage. The 2-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival rates were 67%, 59%, and 53%. The 2-, 5-, and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 68%, 42%, and 42%. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores were 69% and 86%, respectively. We believe the T-incision technique for internal hemipelvectomy is an effective surgical approach for pelvic sarcomas when limb salvage is possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".