Tibial Growth Disturbance Following Distal Femoral Resection and Expandable Endoprosthetic Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In growing children, an expandable endoprosthesis is commonly used after distal femoral resection to compensate for loss of the distal femoral physis. Our hypothesis was that such prostheses can affect proximal tibial growth, which would contribute to an overall leg-length discrepancy and cause angular deformity. METHODS: Twenty-three skeletally immature patients underwent the placement of a distal femoral expandable endoprosthesis between 1994 and 2012. Tibial length, femoral length, and mechanical axis were measured radiographically to determine the growth rate. RESULTS: No patient had radiographic evidence of injury to the proximal tibial physis at the time of surgery other than insertion of the tibial stem. Fifteen (65%) of the patients experienced less proximal tibial growth in the operative compared with the contralateral limb. In ten (43%) of the patients, the discrepancy progressively worsened, whereas in five (22%) of the patients, the discrepancy stabilized. Seven patients did not develop tibial length discrepancy, and one patient had overgrowth of the tibia. For the ten patients with progressive shortening, the proximal tibial physis grew an average of 4.0 mm less per year in the operative limb. Five (22%) of the patients had ≥ 20 mm of tibial length discrepancy at last follow-up. Three of these patients underwent contralateral tibial epiphysiodesis. Three patients required corrective surgery for angular deformity. CONCLUSIONS: The tibial growth plate may not resume normal growth after implantation of a distal femoral prosthesis. Physeal bar resection, prosthesis revision, and contralateral tibial epiphysiodesis may be needed to address tibial growth abnormalities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".