Reconstruction after Total Sacrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Nine patients had sacrectomy with ilio-lumbar arthrodesis for treatment of sacral malignancies at our institution between 2000 and 2004. Five patients had total sacrectomy, three had a sagittal hemisacrectomy, and one had an extended internal hemipelvectomy Type I-S. The average patient age was 39 years. Tumors were Stage IIB in seven patients and Stage IB in two patients. A combined anteroposterior approach was used and a wide surgical margin was attained in all seven patients. A new form of reconstruction using structural fibular grafts and pedicle screw-rod instrumentation was used to create a triangular construct along the anatomic force transmission vectors from the femoral heads to the lumbar spine. The average followup was 18 months. At latest followup, seven patients were alive with no evidence of disease, and two had died from disease. One patient suffered postoperative infection. Independent ambulation was noted in seven patients at last followup. Eight patients had stable reconstructions at latest followup (one patient, who died in December 2004, had a stable reconstruction and was walking with braces and a walker before her death). One patient had instrumentation failure twice and had additional revision instrumentation and bone grafting procedures. She eventually obtained a solid lumbopelvic fusion and walks with Canadian crutches and ankle-foot orthoses. The technique of reconstruction reported here offers promise in dealing with the challenges of reestablishing spinopelvic stability in this difficult anatomic location. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level IV-1 (case series). 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.012 | 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".