Results of Using Modular Mega Prosthesis after Proximal Femoral Tumor Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a commonly performed procedure to restore extensive bone defects for different indications with variable reported outcomes. Objective: This retrospective study aimed to assess the functional outcomes and complication rates of PFR with MUTARS or Hipokrat modular femoral mega prosthesis after oncological resections and to highlight the overall patient, limb, and implant survivorship. Patients and methods: A total of 18 patients had PFR after oncological resection. 14 patients had bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) and 4 patients had total hip arthroplasty (THA). At the final follow-up, the patient’s functional outcome was assessed by Muscloskeletal Tumor Society score (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Complications were recorded and classified according to the Henderson classification. Results: The mean follow-up was 47.78 months (14-103 months). The mean MSTS and TESS score was 65.7 (range 23-97%) and 81 (range 56-98) respectively. Overall limb, implant, and 5-year patient survival were 94%, 94%, and 66% respectively. The overall complication rate was 39%; 11% instability, 17% periprosthetic fracture, 5.6% infection, and 5.6% local tumor recurrence. Conclusion: PFR is a valid option for reconstruction of huge bone loss after oncological resection of the proximal femur with acceptable longevity, functional outcome, and complication rate with better BHA over THA reconstructive option for stability issues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".