MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415439206 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.128

DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS RECONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING RESECTION OF BONE SARCOMAS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2025· article· en· W4415439206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Bozzo, Cynthia Yeung, John H. Healey, Daniel E. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistraction osteogenesisAdamantinomaSarcomaOsteosarcomaProspective cohort studyRadiographyPrimary boneBone SarcomaRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological reconstruction with distraction osteogenesis (DO) is an effective reconstructive method following resection for osseous sarcomas, particularly in the pediatric, adolescent and young adult population. Sustainable long-term function has been established, but there is a paucity of published data informing surgeons and patients on important milestones in the reconstructive process. The objectives of this study are to determine when to expect cortex formation, bone healing, and full weight bearing, as well as the influence of chemotherapy on the bony regeneration process. Prospectively, laboratory, clinical and patient reported outcome score (PROS) data was collected on 30 consecutive patients who underwent primary or secondary DO-based reconstruction following osseous resection at our tertiary care institution from 2018–2021. Serial radiographs indicated the time to cortex formation and full union. An unpaired t-test was used to compare the times required for full bone remodeling of primary and subsequent lengthening segments, and bone healing index (months required per cm of bone regenerated). Functional outcome metrics included the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), Time to Get Up and Go (TTGUG), and Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores (TESS). 7 males and 13 females were included. Median age at initiation of lengthening was 14 (range 4.5–56). Tumor subtypes included conventional high-grade osteosarcoma (16), Ewings sarcoma (6), UPS of bone (3), Adamantinoma (2), undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (BCOR-CCNB3) (2), and parosteal osteosarcoma (1). The average resection length was 13.6 cm (4–22). Resections were from 16 femurs, 11 tibias, 2 humeri and 1 radius. Patients underwent an average of 6.1 procedures (1–14). Half (50%) of all additional procedures were planned repeat lengthening procedures while half were unplanned (20% for infection, 16% for non-union or mal-union, 7% for fracture, 4% hardware failure, 2% for specific docking site issues, 2% for premature consolidation, and 1% for neuropraxia). The first lengthened segment, often initiated concurrently with chemotherapy, required an average of 17 months (+- 7.0) for full remodeling while subsequently lengthened segments, occurring after completion of systemic therapy, required an average of 8.6 months (+- 3.4) for full remodeling (p=.0002). The bone healing index improved from 2.1 to 1.1 months per cm of regenerate bone if no chemotherapy was administered concurrently (p<0.0001). All patients achieved full independent weight bearing and median time to full weight bearing was 12 months (IQR 9–16). Final functional outcomes scores were 24.2 (+−4.8) for MSTS and 81.5 (+−11.5) for TESS, and 7.9s (+−1.9) for TTGUG. This is the largest reported series of distraction osteogenesis reconstruction in oncological patients. Our cohort, similarly to other reported series in the literature, demonstrated a relatively high rate of unplanned returns to the operating room. Despite the increased complications, DO reconstruction remains an attractive option for autologous bone regeneration after massive bony resections for sarcoma. Surgeons and patients can expect bone healing to be nearly twice as fast for segments occurring after completion of systemic chemotherapy compared to segments initiated concurrently with adjuvant chemotherapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207