Outcome after Pelvic Sarcoma Resection Reconstructed with Saddle Prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had saddle prosthetic reconstruction for pelvic sarcoma from 1991 to 2001 with a mean followup of 45 months. Functional outcome was assessed with Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores of 1987 and 1993 and the Toronto Extremity Salvage score. Survival, recurrences, and complications were recorded. Seven (26%) patients had Type II (periacetabular) pelvic resection and 20 had Types II and III (periacetabular and pubis) pelvic resection. Eleven patients had chemotherapy treatment. None received radiation therapy. At final followup 14 patients were free of disease, 11 patients died, and two patients were alive with disease. The survival rate was 60%. Twenty-two percent had local recurrence, and 22% had metastasis. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 93 score in 17 patients was 50.8% +/- 21.7%, the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 87 score was 15.3 +/- 6.1, and the mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 64.4% +/- 17.2%. Infection occurred in 10 patients; six were deep infections. There were five nerve palsies. Heterotopic ossification occurred in 10 patients, fracture occurred in six patients, and dislocation occurred in six patients. Limb shortening was progressive until it stabilized at 12 months, and ultimately ranged between 1 and 6 cm. Five patients were retired, five had full-time employment, and six were disabled. Reconstruction with the saddle prosthesis after resection for pelvic sarcoma is associated with substantial morbidity. However, the functional results seem to confer an advantage when compared with the considerable disability incurred after hemipelvectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level IV-1 (case series without control group). 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".