COMPARISON BETWEEN COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, FLUOROSCOPY, AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR GUIDING PERCUTANEOUS INJECTION OF THE CANINE INTERVERTEBRAL DISC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A minimally invasive method for delivering injectable therapeutic agents would be desirable for the treatment of intervertebral disc disease in dogs. The purpose of this study was to compare computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US), and fluoroscopy modalities for guiding percutaneous injection into canine intervertebral discs. Intervertebral discs of 14 dog cadavers were injected with a gelified ethanol therapeutic agent. Successful injectate placement and injectate leakage were determined based on necropsy inspection of discs. Injection into the nucleus pulposus was successful in 55 of 78 (71%) of all injected discs. Injections guided using CT and fluoroscopy were significantly more successful than US-guided injections. Odds of successful injection without leakage were greater for CT vs. US (P = 0.0026) but there was no significant difference between CT and fluoroscopy (P = 0.0620). Injection success rates did not differ among vertebral sites or dog cadavers of varying weights. Forty-nine (63%) of injection sites had injectate leakage outside the disc and 10 of these involved structures within the vertebral canal. The highest rate of injection success with the least amount of leakage was achieved with CT guidance. Findings indicated that CT, fluoroscopy, and US are feasible modalities for guiding percutaneous injection of a gelified ethanol therapeutic agent into the canine intervertebral disc, with moderate to high success rates for different regions of the spine. However, a moderately high rate of injectate leakage occurred outside of the disc and this should be taken into consideration for future safety and efficacy studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".