Patients Regularly Return to Medium- and Low-Impact Types of Sporting Activities Following Distal Femoral or Proximal Tibial Replacement After Resection of a Primary Bone Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the resumption of sporting activities following megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur and proximal tibia after resection of a bone sarcoma. Thus, the aims of our study were: (1) to assess the functional outcome; (2) to evaluate pre- and post-operatively performed sporting activities; and (3) to identify potential beneficial and limiting factors. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2015, a total of 230 patients underwent distal femoral replacement (DFR), and 96 patients underwent proximal tibial replacement (PTR). The exclusion criteria were death, amputation, living overseas, and a congenital disability. Functional outcome and sporting activities were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS), Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), subjective knee value (SKV), the Tegner activity score (TS), and the modified weighted activity score (WAS). RESULTS: There were 93 patients who had a median follow-up of 182 months (interquartile range (IQR) 130 to 260) after DFR with the following median scores: MSTS 18 (IQR 12 to 23), TESS 75% (IQR 60 to 84), FJS 25 (IQR 8 to 40), SKV 53% (IQR 40 to 70), TS 3 (IQR 3 to 4), and WAS 4 (IQR 0 to 8). There were 42 patients who had a median follow-up of 193 months (IQR 137 to 244) after PTR had the following median scores: MSTS 17 (IQR 15 to 22), TESS 78% (IQR 68 to 88), FJS 32 (IQR 20 to 46), SKV 60% (IQR 40 to 70), TS 3 (IQR 3 to 4), and WAS 4 (IQR 1 to 10). Postoperatively, 61% of DFR and 76% of PTR patients participated in at least one sporting activity. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcome is overall good with a regular resumption of sporting activities. Patients' age at surgery and higher preoperative sporting levels were associated with better functional outcomes and higher postoperative sporting activity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".