Resection of the ilium in patients with a sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The aim of the study was to investigate the controversial issue of whether the pelvic ring should be reconstructed following resection of the sarcomas of the ilium. Patients and Methods From our database, we identified 64 patients who underwent excision of a tumour involving the ilium between 1976 and 2015. A total of 35 underwent complete resection, of whom 24 were reconstructed with a non-vascularised fibula graft, and four with extracorporeal irradiation and reimplantation. A total of 29 patients had a partial resection. The mean follow-up was 9.2 years (1.1 to 25.6). Functional outcomes were assessed using the Toronto Extremity Salvation Score (TESS) at final follow-up. In all, 32 patients (50%) had a chondrosarcoma. Results The mean TESS for all patients was 71.6% (17% to 100%). The mean TESS for those who underwent total resection with reconstruction was 72.0% (17% to 100%) and without reconstruction it was 53.3% (20% to 90%) and for those who underwent partial resection it was 76.3% (31.3% to 100%). The rate of local recurrence was 42.2% and this was more common in those treated by partial resection (p = 0.048). The risk of local recurrence was related to the margin achieved at resection. Conclusions Given the high rate of local recurrence following excision of a tumour from the ilium, obtaining wide surgical margins should be a priority even if this requires more aggressive surgery. In young patients, where late recurrence may occur, more radical complete resection should be considered. When total resection of the ilium is considered, reconstruction should also be considered as it confers a higher functional outcome than total resection without reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:538–43.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".