Function and return to sports after proximal humeral replacement in patients with primary bone sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved patient and limb survival rates have led to an increased interest in the functional outcome and return to sports of patients undergoing megaprosthetic reconstruction in musculoskeletal oncology. This study evaluates the functional outcome and postoperatively performed level of sports in patients undergoing proximal humeral replacement (PHR) following resection of a primary bone sarcoma and identifies potential beneficial and limiting factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2020, a total of 606 patients underwent resection of a primary bone sarcoma and reconstruction with a single-design modular implant. For 112 (18%) patients, the location of the tumour was the proximal humerus. Exclusion criteria were death (n = 65), patients living overseas (n = 8), and subsequent amputation (n = 1), leaving 38 patients for evaluation, of whom 32 were available for the study (13 women, median age 42 years). Clinical data regarding oncological and surgical treatment as well as subsequent complications were obtained from the patients' electronic medical records. Functional outcome was determined using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) as well as the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Return to sports was assessed using the Tegner Activity Score (TS) and the modified Weighted Activity Score (WAS). RESULTS: At the last follow-up after a median of 30 months (IQR 22-58), median MSTS was 18 (IQR 12-24), median TESS was 80% (IQR 69-87), median SSV was 35% (IQR 10-58), median TS was 5 (IQR 4-6) and median WAS was 5 (IQR 0-10). Preservation of the axillary nerve, a reverse shoulder reconstruction and a WAS of > 10 prior to surgery were associated with better functional outcome and return to sports activity scores. CONCLUSION: Following PHR, good to excellent functional outcomes are possible, and patients regularly return to participate in sports activities-most commonly in low-impact types of sports, but some individuals are even able to participate in high-impact sports activities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".