Endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas with bone involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bone resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) in the setting of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) management is rare and incurs unique challenges. We aim to report on the surgical and oncological outcomes of this relatively previously undocumented cohort. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of prospectively collected data for patients who required EPRs following resection of STSs of the lower extremity. Following inclusion criteria, we assessed 29 cases of EPR for primary STS of the lower limb. RESULTS: The mean age was 54 years (range 18-84). Of the 29 patients, there were 6 total femur, 11 proximal femur, 4 intercalary, and 8 distal femur EPRs. Fourteen of 29 patients (48%) underwent re-operations for surgical complications, with 9 relating to infection (31%). When a matched cohort analysis was performed comparing our cohort to STSs that did not necessitate EPR, a reduced rate of overall survival and metastasis-free survival was found in those requiring EPR. CONCLUSION: This series identifies a high rate of complication from EPRs performed for STS. Patients should be cautioned about the high rate of infection, surgical complications, and lower overall survival in this setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".