MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205182700 · doi:10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100397

Frequency and reason for reoperation following non-invasive expandable endoprostheses: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3205182700 on OpenAlex
Johnathan R. Lex, Amirul Adlan, Kim Tsoi, Scott Evans, Jonathan Stevenson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of bone oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantImplant failureSurgeryCochrane LibraryProsthesisTibiaRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive expandable endoprostheses (NIEPR) utilize an external electromagnetic field to drive an innate mechanical gearbox. This lengthens the extremity following oncological resections in children with a predicted limb length discrepancy (LLD), facilitating limb-salvage. This review was conducted to assess NIEPR implant survival rates and identify modes of implant failure unique to these prostheses. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for all manuscripts evaluating implant survival of NIEPRs implanted into skeletally immature patients following resection of extremity sarcomas. Minimum follow-up of 12 months or implant failure was required for inclusion. Failures were classified using the latest ISOLS classification and exact implant-specific failure modality was also identified. RESULTS: 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 10.0 years (7.7 - 11.4 years). The most common locations for NIEPR implantation were the distal femur (343, 76.7%) and proximal tibia (53, 119%). Mean follow-up was 65.3 months (19.4 - 163 months). The overall implant revision rate was 46.2% (0 - 100%); implant specific revisions included maximal prosthesis lengthening with persistent LLD (10.4%), failed extension mechanism (6.1%), implant fracture (7.7%), hinge fracture (1.4%) and bushing wear (0.9%). Persistent clinically significant (>20 mm) LLD at final follow-up was present in 19.2% (0 - 50%) of patients. The mean MSTS score was 85.1% (66.7-96.3%) at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: Implant-related failures are the most common reason for NIEPR revision. Implant reliability appears to be improved with current designs. A sub-classification to the current classification system based on implant-specific failures for NIEPRs is proposed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it