Outcome in Two Groups of Patients with Allograft-Prosthetic Reconstruction of Pelvic Tumor Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: To predict the outcomes obtained with allograft-implant composite reconstruction of pelvic defects after bone tumor resection better, a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was done and two groups of patients were identified. These groups were compared with respect to oncologic and functional outcomes in this investigation. Group 1 included 21 patients with allograft total hip replacement reconstruction for pelvic bone tumors that required Type I and II or Type I, II, and III pelvic resections. Group 2 included five patients who required an acetabular allograft in combination with proximal femoral replacement for reconstruction of Type II pelvic resections done to treat proximal femoral bone sarcomas that invaded or surrounded the hip joint. Functional assessment was measured with three instruments (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987, and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 scores). In Group 1, nine of 19 evaluable patients (two patients died in the immediate postoperative period) either retained the allograft until their death or were still alive at last followup with their allograft in place. An additional patient had revision surgery to an allograft-saddle composite that remains intact. The functional results in Group 1 were influenced heavily by the occurrence of deep infection. Nine of 19 evaluable patients developed infection, with seven patients requiring either removal of the graft (three patients) or hindquarter amputation (four patients). Two patients retained their infected allografts with long-term antibiotic suppression. In 10 Group 1 patients who did not develop infection, reasonable functional results were obtained. Group 2 patients had no infections and better functional results. 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".