Biomechanical Flexion–Extension Forces in Normal Canine Lumbosacral Cadaver Specimens Before and After Dorsal Laminectomy–Discectomy and Pedicle Screw–Rod Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine biomechanical flexion-extension forces in cadaveric canine lumbosacral specimens, before and after dorsal laminectomy with partial discectomy, and after dorsal pedicle screw-rod fixation of L7 and S1. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical cadaver study. ANIMALS: Cadaveric spine specimens without lumbosacral pathology from mature, intact Labrador retrievers (n=12). METHODS: Lumbosacral spine segments were subjected to a constant bending moment from L6 to S1 in a hydraulic 4-point bending materials testing machine. Force and displacement were recorded during each loading cycle constituting 1 complete flexion-extension cycle of the spine. Each spine segment had 3 series of recordings of 5 loading cycles each: (1) intact spine, (2) after surgical destabilization by dorsal laminectomy and partial discectomy, and (3) after surgical stabilization using dorsal pedicle screw-rod fixation. RESULTS: After dorsal laminectomy and partial discectomy, the neutral zone and range of motion were not different from those in the native spine specimen. After pedicle screw-rod fixation, the neutral zone and range of motion of the instrumented specimen significantly (P<.0001) decreased compared with the native specimen and the specimen after dorsal laminectomy. CONCLUSION: Dorsal laminectomy and partial discectomy does not lead to significant spinal instability in flexion and extension whereas pedicle screw and rod fixation effectively stabilizes the lumbosacral spine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dorsal laminectomy and partial discectomy does not lead to significant spinal instability. Pedicle screw-rod fixation of L7 and S1 may be used to stabilize an unstable L7-S1 junction in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".