MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412706534 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00217

Clinical Outcomes of Different Surgical Methods for Campanacci Grade III and Recurrent Giant Cell Tumors of the Distal Radius

2025· article· en· W4412706534 on OpenAlexaff
Anqi Wang, Jinxin Hu, Tianqi Luo, Qinglian Tang, Jin Wang, Xiaojun Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryWristCurettageArthrodesisGrip strengthRange of motionPerioperativeArthroplastyWrist pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Campanacci grade III and recurrent giant cell tumors (GCTs) of the distal radius are aggressive, but treatments are scare, and universally accepted surgical strategy has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of different surgical methods for these tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 26 patients with Campanacci grade III or recurrent GCT of the distal radius between 2017 and 2023 in this study. Patients were divided into intralesional curettage group (n = 12) and wide excision group (n = 14). According to the different reconstruction methods, the wide excision group was further divided into two subgroups, including the arthroplasty subgroup (n = 8) and the arthrodesis subgroup (n = 6). All patients underwentsurgeries, and perioperative denosumab was recommended. Pre- and postoperative active range of motion (ROM) of the wrist, grip strength, visual analog score, Mayo wrist score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score were assessed. Postoperative complications, denosumab application, and tumor recurrence were also evaluated. RESULTS: The intralesional curettage group was superior to the wide excision group in reservation of ROM of the wrist but related to higher local recurrence rate (25% vs. 7.1%). Postoperative pain relief and satisfaction of the patients were more obvious in the wide excision group compared with the intralesional curettage group. Arthroplasty and arthrodesis following wide excision provided similar improvements in grip strength, visual analog score, Mayo wrist score, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores after surgery. Arthroplasty better reserved ROM of the wrist but associated with more complications especially wrist instability and revision surgery than arthrodesis. Arthrodesis restricted flexion, extension, and radial and ulnar deviations of the wrist but related to few instability complications. CONCLUSION: Wide excision was the preferred choice for Campanacci grade III and recurrent GCT of the distal radius considering adequate local control, good pain relief, and satisfaction. Extended intralesional curettage with postoperative denosumab administration was also a reasonable alternative with better functional outcomes but increased risk of recurrence and possibility of wide excision revision surgery in the future. Arthroplasty following wide excision could reserve the motion of wrist but associated with frequent wrist instability and relatively high revision surgery rate. Arthrodesis could ensure a more stable wrist, and it is recommended for manual workers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207