MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344071495 · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4853-9

CORR Insights®: LUMiC® Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: Short-term Results

2016· letter· en· W2344071495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason S. Weisstein

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemipelvectomySurgeryAmputationProsthesisOrthopedic surgeryAcetabulumArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Where Are We Now? The management of large periacetabular defects after oncologic resections has always been one of the most technically demanding surgical interventions in orthopaedics. The appropriate treatment options generally include either amputation, internal hemipelvectomy, allograft composite reconstruction, or endoprosthetic replacement. However, each is, in its own way, a high-risk intervention. Bus and colleagues retrospectively studied a novel modular prosthesis with pelvic and hydroxyapatite-coated femoral fixation (LUMiC® prosthesis [implantcast, Buxtehude, Germany]) with a minimum multicenter followup of 24 months. The authors found that while dislocations were a common cause of failure (recurrent dislocations occurred in 9%, or four of 47 patients), a dual-mobility articulation lowered the risk of dislocation. And although loosening was found to be consistent with other published studies on other novel methods of pelvic endoprosthetic reconstruction [2, 4], infection was the most common complication reported. The authors did note that the majority of the infections were successfully managed with débridement and antibiotics. Where Do We Need To Go? Although this study certainly adds promise to the armamentarium of prosthetic pelvic reconstruction options, it remains unclear whether cemented or uncemented femoral fixation differs in terms of overall durability, and whether silver coating of the acetabulum leads to fewer infections. How Do We Get There? A larger study size with long-term followup will help to elucidate these issues. Additionally, the authors may consider utilizing a functional outcome measurement tool such as the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score, the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, or the Barthel Index to determine if this prosthesis adds functional benefits compared to historical interventions such as external hemipelvectomy and internal hemipelvectomy with or without reconstruction. Long-term functional outcomes are similar between patients who underwent external hemipelvectomy and complex limb sparing endoprosthetic reconstruction. In today's cost conscious healthcare environment, answers to such questions may become increasingly important [1, 3, 5]. Lastly, as is noted by the authors, periacetabular reconstruction surgery has a substantial learning curve and it is entirely plausible that the benefits of this intervention might only be achievable in experienced hands. Future studies should attempt to identify differences in durability and functional outcomes between patients with primary bone sarcomas and other oncologic diagnoses such as metastatic carcinoma where age, comorbidities, and medical treatment may differ considerably.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207