Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction after distal radius tumor resection: Reoperation and patient reported outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to evaluate the rate of wrist joint preservation, allograft retention, factors associated with reoperation and to report the patient reported outcomes after osteoarticular allograft reconstruction of the distal radius. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified 33 patients who underwent distal radius resection followed by osteoarticular allograft reconstruction, including 27 giant cell tumors and 6 primary malignancies. Ten patients with a preserved wrist joint completed the QuickDASH, PROMIS-CA physical function, and Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) at a median of 13 years postoperatively. RESULTS: The allograft retention rate was 89%, and an allograft fracture predisposed to conversion to wrist arthrodesis. The reoperation rate was 55% and 36% underwent wrist arthrodesis at a median of 4.2 years following index surgery. The use of locking plate fixation was associated with lower reoperation and allograft fracture rates. Patients reported a median QuickDASH of 10.2 (range: 0-52.3), a mean PROMIS physical function of 57.8 (range: 38.9-64.5) and the median TESS was 95.5 (range: 67.0-98.4). CONCLUSION: Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction results in acceptable long-term patient reported outcomes, despite a high revision rate. Allograft fixation with locking plates seems to reduce the number of reoperations and allograft fractures, along with reduction in wrist arthrodesis rates.
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 | 0.001 | 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".