Postoperative function recovery in patients with endoprosthetic knee replacement for bone tumour: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to describe the rehabilitative pathway of patients undergoing endoprosthetic knee replacement surgery, build reference values of the functional results achieved, and identify possible prognostic factors. METHODS: Prospective observational study. All patients undergoing resection and knee replacement surgery using a modular prosthesis following bone tumor resection were consecutively recruited over the last 2 years. The patients were followed for a period of 1 year, the result values were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were enrolled. The median age was 19 years with 33% of patients being female. Median values recorded for knee flexion, quadriceps strength, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, Time Up and Go and Six Minutes Walking Test showed an improvement of 16, 25, 18, 48 and 38% from 3 to 12 months, respectively. The level and width of the resection were correlated with the mobility of the knee and the strength of the quadriceps. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing knee replacement for bone tumors were able to achieve satisfactory functional outcomes from the first postoperative year. A specific assessment of outcomes can be conducted to facilitate the management of patient expectations. A very wide resection and interventions of the proximal tibia are risk factors for a poorer functional outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".