Comparison of reconstructive techniques after acetabular resection for pelvic chondrosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Hip reconstruction after resection of a periacetabular chondrosarcoma is complex and associated with a high rate of complications. Previous reports have compared no reconstruction with historical techniques that are no longer used. The aim of this study was to compare the results of tantalum acetabular reconstruction to both historical techniques and no reconstruction. Methods We reviewed 66 patients (45 males and 21 females) with a mean age of 53 years (24 to 81) who had undergone acetabular resection for chondrosarcoma. A total of 36 patients (54%) underwent acetabular reconstruction, most commonly with a saddle prosthesis (n = 13; 36%) or a tantalum total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 10; 28%). Mean follow-up was nine years (SD 4). Results There was no difference in the mean age (p = 0.63), sex (p = 0.110), tumour volume (p = 0.646), or type of resection carried out (p > 0.05) between patients with and without reconstruction. Of the original 66 patients, 61 (92%) were ambulant at final follow-up. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who could walk in the reconstruction and 'no reconstruction' groups (p = 0.649). There was no difference in the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score between patients who were reconstructed and those who were not (61% vs 56%; p = 0.378). Patients with a tantalum THA had a significantly (p = 0.015) higher mean MSTS score (78%) than those who were reconstructed with a saddle prosthesis (47%) or who had not been reconstructed (56%). Patients who had undergone reconstruction were more likely to have complications (81% vs 53%; p = 0.033). Conclusion Reconstruction after resection of the acetabulum is technically demanding. In selected cases, reconstruction is of benefit, especially when reconstruction is by tantalum THA; however, the follow-up for these patients remains mid-term. When not feasible, patients with no reconstruction have an acceptable functional outcome. Level of Evidence: Level III Therapeutic. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):391–397.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".