Long‐term results of transarticular pinning for surgical stabilisation of coxofemoral luxation in 20 cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe initial and long-term results of open reduction and transarticular pinning for treatment of coxofemoral luxations in cats. METHODS: Cats were treated by open reduction and transarticular pinning for coxofemoral luxation over a five year period at two institutions. Follow-up assessment included orthopaedic examination, radiography and owner questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty cats were included in the study (14 males and six females). One cat was affected bilaterally. Mean time to follow-up was 21 months. Seventeen joints were stabilised with a 1.6 mm pin, three with 2.0 mm pins and a 1.2 mm pin was used in the remaining joint. An Ehmer sling was not utilised in any case. All transarticular pins except one were removed (mean 3.5 weeks), with all hips still in reduction The overall success rate was 77 per cent, with two reluxations and one resorbed femoral head noted on radiographs of 13 joints followed long term. All 20 owners reported good to excellent long-term functional outcome for their cats. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Results from this study indicate that transarticular pinning for stabilisation of coxofemoral luxation in cats can provide a good long-term outcome without sacrificing the integrity of the coxofemoral joint.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".