Mid- to long-term results of allograft–prosthesis composite reconstruction after removal of a distal femoral malignant tumor are comparable to those of the proximal tibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of allograft-prosthesis composite for reconstruction after malignant tumors at the distal femur and proximal tibia. METHODS: Case-control study of 24 patients with distal femur tumor and 21 with proximal tibia tumor. Union of the allograft-host interface was assessed by the International Society of Limb Salvage criteria, and complications according Henderson. Functional outcome was evaluated by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, and pain by a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The median follow-up in the femoral group was 11.4 (range 2.3-25.0) years, and 10.1 (range 2.2-25.0) in tibial group. Incorporation of the allograft was successful in more than 90% in both groups. Tumor location was not significant predictor for allograft failure in multivariate analysis. Aseptic prosthesis loosening occurred in two patients in either group, and another patient in the tibial group had a breakage of the tibial insert. Excluding local recurrences and amputations, the prosthesis survival at 10 years was 94.1% in the femoral group, and 83.3% in the tibial group (n.s.). For the patients with preserved limb, the median MSTS score was 23.6 in the femoral group and 22.8 in tibial group (n.s.). Likewise, there were no significant differences in median WOMAC score (n.s.) or VAS pain (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Allograft-prosthesis composite is an effective procedure for distal femur tumors related to the graft, prosthesis survival, and functional outcomes. The results are comparable to those for proximal tibial tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.
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 | 0.001 | 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".