A comparison of delayed versus immediate reconstruction following lower-extremity sarcoma resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying patients who may be at high risk for wound complications postsarcoma resection and reconstruction is essential for improving functional outcomes and quality of life. Currently, the effect of timing on sarcoma reconstruction has been poorly investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of delayed and immediate reconstruction in the setting of sarcoma resection requiring flap reconstruction in the lower extremity. METHODS: A retrospective review of the senior author's sarcoma reconstruction patients from January 2005 to July 2017 was completed. All patients undergoing flap reconstruction of the lower extremity were included. Complications in the early postoperative period were compared between delayed and immediate reconstructive procedures. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients (7 delayed, 25 immediate) were included in this study. There was a significantly increased rate of overall complications (100% vs. 28.0%, P=0.001) and rate of hematomas (28.6% vs. 0.0%, P=0.042) in the delayed reconstruction group. Other complications including dehiscence, seroma, infection, venous thrombosis, and total/partial flap loss were also increased in the delayed reconstruction group, but this was not considered to be significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that delayed reconstruction following sarcoma resection of the lower extremity had a higher incidence of overall complications and hematoma formation. We emphasize the importance of early plastic and reconstructive surgeon referral and the necessity to closely monitor delayed reconstruction patients for complications.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".