Progress in muscle strength of the reconstructed knee and quality of life of the patient after knee rotationplasty: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee rotationplasty (KRP) is a function-preserving surgery that serves as an alternative to above-knee amputation in patients diagnosed with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors around the knee joint. However, the short-term progress of the reconstructed knee in terms of muscle strength is unclear after KRP. This case report describes the progress of a 37-year-old man diagnosed with synovial sarcoma in the distal femur, 1 year after undergoing KRP. Changes in muscle strength of the reconstructed knee and physical function are reported. Physical therapy was started on postoperative day 1 after the KRP, and mobilization proceeded step-by-step with sitting, wheelchair transfer, and crutch walking. Active and passive range-of-motion exercises of the reconstructed knee were started on postoperative day 5. The isometric reconstructed knee extension strength, 10-m walk test, timed up and go test, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, and quality of life (QOL) were evaluated. One month postoperatively, muscle strength had increased, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, isometric knee extension strength and physical function had improved. Furthermore, activities of daily living and QOL gradually improved over the course of the 12 months. Our case shows the previously unknown course of reconstructed knee muscle strength in the early post-KRP period, with corresponding improvements in physical function, activities of daily living, and QOL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".