Concomitant Upper Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma Limb-Sparing Resection and Functional Reconstruction: Assessment of Outcomes and Costs of Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate functional outcomes and cost impacts of immediate functional reconstruction performed in conjunction with limb-sparing resection of upper extremity soft tissue sarcomas. METHODS: Patients undergoing simultaneous limb-sparing upper extremity soft tissue sarcoma resection and functional reconstruction between December 1998 and March 2004 were retrospectively identified, their medical records reviewed, and costs of surgery analyzed. Functional outcomes and patient satisfaction were assessed via patient surveys and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). RESULTS: Thirteen patients met the inclusion criteria. Average follow-up was 43.3 months. Reconstructions included rotational innervated muscle flaps (n = 6), free innervated myocutaneous flaps (n = 1), and tendon transfers or grafts (n = 6). Overall survival was 85 % (n = 11) and disease-free survival was 77 % (n = 10). Average total cost of surgery was $26,655. Patients undergoing reconstruction for hand and forearm sarcomas had significantly higher total costs of surgery than those undergoing reconstruction for elbow and upper arm sarcomas. Survey response rate was 91 % (n = 10). Average TESS score was 76. Of the patients who worked preoperatively, 88 % returned to work postoperatively, and all patients who returned to work currently use their affected limb at work. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing immediate functional reconstruction for upper extremity soft tissue sarcoma resection achieved very good to excellent functional outcomes with quick recovery times and a high return-to-work rate following immediate functional reconstruction, thereby minimizing surgical cost impacts. Immediate functional reconstruction in the same surgical setting is thus a viable strategy following upper extremity soft tissue sarcoma resection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".