Rotationplasty performed in adults versus minors: a comparative study of long-term quality of life, functional and biomechanical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Rotationplasty performed in adulthood showed higher physical QoL scores than minors. • No differences in mental QoL, gait, energy cost, or radiographic OA were found. • Adults showed shorter stride length and longer double support phase. • Literature showed good QoL and function in adult cases, despite complications. Rotationplasty is a surgical technique primarily used in pediatric patients with malignant bone tumors around the knee. Its application in adults is rare, and outcomes are poorly defined. This study aimed to compare long-term QoL, function, and gait between patients treated with rotationplasty in childhood versus adulthood. This cross-sectional post-hoc analysis included 33 patients treated between 1980–2002 (9 adults, 24 minors). Assessments included the mental and physical component score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36, MCS/ PCS), overall satisfaction, radiographs (Kellgren-Lawrence) of the pseudo-knee, contralateral ankle, and hips, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS), energy cost of comfortable walking during a 6-minute walk test, and 3-Dimenional gait analysis. Group comparisons were performed across all outcomes. Additionally, a systematic literature search identified published adult cases. People who underwent surgery during adulthood reported significantly higher physical QoL compared to those operated in childhood (MD 6.1, 95 % CI 0.0–12.3; p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed for the SF-36 MCS, TESS, MSTS, energy cost, sagittal-plane biomechanics, and radiographic OA prevalence. Adults exhibited a significantly shorter stride length (p < 0.01) and a longer double support phase (p = 0.01) compared to those treated in childhood. The literature review (22 studies, 51 patients) demonstrated overall favorable outcomes, though no objective gait data were reported. Adults who undergo rotationplasty can achieve long-term quality of life, functional, and gait outcomes at least comparable to those operated on in childhood. These findings suggest that rotationplasty may be a viable reconstructive option in adults
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".