Effect of Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy on Femorotibial Contact Mechanics and Stifle Kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) on femorotibial contact mechanics and 3-dimensional (3D) kinematics in cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL)-deficient stifles of dogs. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. ANIMALS: Unpaired pelvic limbs from 8 dogs, weighing 28-35 kg. METHODS: Digital pressure sensors placed subjacent to the menisci were used to measure femorotibial contact force, contact area, peak and mean contact pressure, and peak pressure location with the limb under an axial load of 30% body weight and a stifle angle of 135 degrees. Three-dimensional static poses of the stifle were obtained using a Microscribe digitizing arm. Each specimen was tested under normal, CrCL-deficient, and TPLO-treated conditions. Repeated measures analysis of variance with a Tukey post hoc test (P<.05) was used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: Significant disturbances to all measured contact mechanical variables were evident after CrCL transection, which corresponded to marked cranial tibial subluxation and increased internal tibial rotation in the CrCL-deficient stifle. No significant differences in 3D femorotibial alignment were observed between normal and TPLO-treated stifles; however, femorotibial contact area remained significantly smaller and peak contact pressures in both medial and lateral stifle compartments were positioned more caudally on the tibial plateau, when compared with normal. CONCLUSION: Whereas TPLO eliminates craniocaudal stifle instability during simulated weight bearing, the procedure fails to concurrently restore femorotibial contact mechanics to normal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Progression of stifle osteoarthritis in dogs treated with TPLO may be partly the result of abnormal stifle contact mechanics induced by altering the orientation of the proximal tibial articulating surface.
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 | 0.000 | 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".