Evaluation of a Technique for Collection of Cancellous Bone Graft from the Proximal Humerus in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe a technique for collecting cancellous bone graft from the proximal humerus in horses. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of an experimental bone graft collection technique. ANIMAL POPULATION: Eight horses, 3-15 years, weighing 495-605 kg. METHODS: Horses were anesthetized and positioned in lateral recumbency. The lateral aspect of the proximal humerus was exposed by a 7-10-cm incision extending distally from the greater humeral tubercle, followed by sharp dissection through the omotransversarius muscle and between the infraspinatus and deltoideus muscles. A 12-mm cortical defect was incrementally created in the lateral proximal humerus. Human bone graft harvesting equipment (Acumed, Beaverton, OR) was drilled through this defect to collect a core of cancellous bone. In five horses additional cancellous bone was then collected with conventional instruments. Bone samples were weighed and histologically examined. Horses were monitored and graded for quality of anesthetic recovery, incisional complications, and postoperative lameness. RESULTS: Total mean (+/-SD) surgical time for harvesting bone with the Acumed system and traditional techniques (n=5) was 38+/-6 minutes (range, 32-47 minutes). Mean cancellous bone weight collected with the Acumed system was 3.6+/-0.8 g (range, 2.0-4.6 g), and cancellous bone collected conventionally was 25.6+/-7.5 g (range, 16.8-34.2 g). Minimal incisional complications or postoperative lameness were observed. Mortality was 12.5%; one horse fractured the operated humerus during anesthetic recovery. CONCLUSION: The Acumed system provided limited cancellous bone when used with the technique described. However, the quantity of cancellous bone collected with traditional harvesting instruments was comparable to other sites used in horses. The procedure was associated with minimal postoperative incisional complications or lameness, but because one horse suffered a catastrophic humeral fracture further research is required to assess the effects of this procedure on humeral breaking strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the risk of catastrophic fracture, this technique cannot be recommended for use in clinical cases, especially if an unassisted recovery from general anesthesia is planned.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".