Pelvic Reconstruction Using Saddle Prosthesis following Limb Salvage Operation for Periacetabular Tumour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical results of pelvic reconstruction using a saddle prosthesis following limb salvage operation for periacetabular tumour. METHODS: 12 patients with sarcoma and 4 with metastasis involving the pelvis were treated using the saddle prosthesis between 1995 and 2003 inclusive. Wide pelvic resection was performed for all patients with sarcoma and one with a metastatic lesion; intralesional excision of the acetabulum was undertaken for the remaining 3 patients with metastatic lesions. Oncologic prognosis, operation time, postoperative function, and complications were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: Of the 12 patients with sarcomas, 5 were alive without evidence of recurrence after a mean follow-up of 37 months, one was alive with disease, 3 died of the disease, and 3 of other medical conditions. Respective mean postoperative functional scores according to the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society-International Symposium on Limb Salvage system and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score were 53 and 64% in patients undergoing wide acetabular resection, and 30 and 42% in patients undergoing intralesional excision of the acetabulum. In patients undergoing wide acetabular resection and intralesional excision of the acetabulum, the mean operation times were 391 and 162 minutes respectively, whereas the mean times to ambulation were 7 and 4 days respectively. Major complications included infection and dislocation. CONCLUSION: Saddle prosthesis arthroplasty is a useful option for pelvic reconstruction following resection of acetabular malignancies. It is associated with a short operation time, rapid recovery, and moderately good postoperative function, but a relatively high risk of complications.
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) | 0.001 | 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".