What sports activity levels are achieved in long-term survivors with modular endoprosthetic humerus reconstruction following primary bone sarcoma resection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess (1) sports activity, (2) sports involving the upper extremities, (3) functional outcome and (4) sports-related complications of long-term survivors of primary malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus. METHODS: A total of 18 patients with an endoprosthetic reconstruction for primary malignant bone sarcoma of the proximal humerus (8 male, 10 female, mean age 19.9 ± 8.4 years, range 7.8-37.4 years) with an average follow-up of 18.1 ± 7.4 years (range 6.7-29.8 years) were included. The type of sport, frequency, duration of each sport session and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score were assessed before surgery, at 1 year, 3 years and at the latest follow-up. Functional outcome was assessed by the Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS). RESULTS: The mean UCLA activity score decreased from 8.0 (±1.3, range 5-9) preoperative to 4.2 (±1.7, range 3-8) at 1‑year follow-up (p < 0.05). After 3 years it increased to 5.1 (±1.75, range 3-8) and further to 7 (±1.8, range 4-9) at the last follow-up. The mean postoperative TESS was 80.8 (±6.4, range 75.7-91.4) at the latest follow-up. Patients who were initially more active without reconstruction including a synthetic mesh were more likely to develop soft tissue complications accompanied by proximal endoprothesis migration. CONCLUSION: Patients with a modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of the humerus following primary bone sarcoma resume participation in sports. Regarding the low incidence of periprosthetic infections, utilization of a synthetic mesh for reconstruction to prevent soft tissue complications in active patients should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".