4.P.05 DISTAL RADIAL ENDO-PROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT- A WASTE OF TIME?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malignant tumours of the radius compose only 3% of all upper limb tumours. Owing to their rarity they are often difficult to manage satisfactorily. Of the options for fixation available, endoprosthetic replacements have been scarcely utilized despite their success in limb preservation with malignant tumours in other parts of the body. At our centre we have used these when biological solutions (eg fibula graft) were not indicated due to extensive disease or the need for radiotherapy. We performed four endoprosthetic replacements of the distal radius in three males and one female with ages ranging from 19–66 years (average= 42.25 years of age). Two were performed for varieties of osteosarcoma (parosteal and osteoblastic osteosarcomas), one for a large destructive giant cell tumour (GCT) and one for destructive renal metastases. Three were right sided (75%) and one left sided (25%). Medical records were evaluated for information on local recurrence, metastases, complications and functional outcome using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Follow up ranged from 22 to 205 months (average= 116.5 months). The average TESS score was 58.1% (range= 44.6–74.5%). Neither case of osteosarcoma recurred. The GCT recurred twice and the patient with renal metastases had nodules removed from his affected wrist on two further occasions. There were no cases of infection, but the two earlier cases had problems with metacarpal stems cutting out and jointsubluxatinos. The two earlier cases have since died at 205 (parosteal osteosarcoma) and 189 months (GCT) respectively of other disease. We conclude that although this is a very small series of endoprosthetic replacement of the distal radius, the technique is a useful addition to the surgical options, with acceptable postoperative functional results and complication rates when a biological solution or preservation of the wrist joint is not indicated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.014 |
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".