MEGA-PROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION FOR MALIGNANT TUMOURS AND METASTASIS IN PROXIMAL FEMUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endoprosthetic reconstruction is now widely accepted for skeletal defects following resection of bone tumors. Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement for destructive metastasis or primary bone tumour of this site is a universally accepted procedure. This study was done with the aim to assess the clinical and functional outcomes following proximal femoral tumour prosthesis reconstruction in these patients. Methods: We treated 12 consecutive patients with metastasis to/ primary sarcomas of proximal femur with endoprosthetic reconstruction from June 2006 to May 2009. The cases were Chondrosarcoma (n = 4), Osteosarcoma (n-3), Ewings Sarcoma (n = 1) and metastasis (n = 4). At the time of final follow-up functional outcome was assessed using Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) in addition to factors like patient survival, implant survival, local control of disease and complications. Results: There were 8 male and 4 female patients. The mean age was 43.2 years (range 24.7 to 65.6 years). The mean follow up was 4.8 years (range 6.2-3.4 years). Six patients expired leaving a total of 6 patients at the time of final follow up. There was one aseptic dislocation following surgery and the other patient developed deep infection along with dislocation which was managed with hip disarticulation. The mean TESS score was 63% (52%-80%). Conclusion: Endoprosthetic reconstruction for proximal femur is a good option with low complication rate and acceptable function which outlives the life expectancy of the patients with primary bone tumors/metastasis of the proximal femur.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".