Long‐term patient‐reported outcome measures following limb salvage with complex reconstruction or amputation in the treatment of upper extremity sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study compares long-term patient-reported outcomes between patients that underwent limb-salvage surgery with complex reconstruction by free or pedicled flap (LS) or amputation. Additionally, the need for revision surgery is compared. METHODS: A total of 43 patients were studied at a median follow-up of 9.54 years. Sixteen patients completed questionnaires regarding functional outcome and mental wellbeing. Functional outcomes were measured by using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), QuickDASH, and PROMIS Upper Extremity instruments. Mental wellbeing was assessed using the PROMIS Anxiety and Depression instruments. Revision surgery was assessed for the entire follow-up. RESULTS: The median TESS scores were 96.0 versus 71.7 (p = 0.034) and the PROMIS Upper Extremity scores were 50.1 versus 40.3 (p = 0.039) for the LS and amputation cohorts, respectively. No significant difference was found regarding symptoms of anxiety (52.7 vs. 53.8; p = 0.587) or depression (52.0 vs. 50.5; p = 0.745). Of the patients in the LS cohort 51.6% required at least one reoperation compared to 8.33% in the amputation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: LS surgery maintains functional benefits over amputation after almost a decade of follow-up. Still, mental wellbeing seems to be comparable between these patients, whereas LS procedures are associated with a sixfold increased need for reoperations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".