EFFECT OF INTERTROCHANTERIC OSTEOTOMY ON THE PROXIMAL FEMUR OF RABBITS: ASSESSMENT WITH POWER DOPPLER SONOGRAPHY AND SCINTIGRAPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In bone injury, repair results in local increased vascularity and bone marrow remodeling. Characterizing the vascular and metabolic imaging patterns of the proximal femur following an intertrochanteric osteotomy may help clinicians decide proper management of the patient. Our objective was to measure Doppler sonography and scintigraphy interval changes in the proximal femur following intertrochanteric osteotomy and compare imaging and histomorphometric measurements in the late post-operative stage (6 weeks after surgery) in a rabbit model of bone injury. Both hips of 12 adult rabbits were imaged with power Doppler sonography and scintigraphy prior to and after (7 days and 6 weeks) unilateral osteotomy. Accuracy of the imaging methods was evaluated using hip operative status and histomorphometric results (vascular fractional area and number of vessels per area unit) as reference standard measures. A significant difference in the mean number of pixels was noted between operated and non-operated femura in late post-operative power Doppler examinations (P=0.049). Although without reaching statistical significance, the AUC of Doppler measurements (AUC=0.99) was numerically greater than the AUC of scintigraphy measurements (AUC=0.857±0.099) (P=0.15) in differentiating proximal femura with regard to their fractional vascular areas in the late post-operative stage. In contrast, scintigraphy tended to perform better (AUC=0.984±0.022) than Doppler ultrasound (AUC=0.746±0.131) to demonstrate the vascularity intensity per area unit (P=0.07) in the late stage. Our results warrant further investigation to determine the value of different imaging modalities for assessment of pathologic changes following hip surgery. Power Doppler sonography demonstrated larger AUCs (representing higher accuracy) for the discrimination of vascular fractional areas and scintigraphy, for discrimination of the number of vessels per area unit. Regeneração em casos de lesão óssea resulta em aumento da vascularização local e remodelamento da medula óssea adjacente. A caracterização imagenológica de padrões vasculares e metabólicos no fêmur proximal após uma osteotomia intertrocantérica pode auxiliar ortopedistas a decidirem qual a terapêutica mais apropriada. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as alterações temporais observadas por ultra-sonografia Doppler e cintilografia no fêmur proximal após a realização de uma osteotomia intertrocantérica; e comparar achados image-nológicos e histomorfométricos no estágio pós-operatório tardio (6 semanas após a cirurgia) num modelo animal de lesão óssea. Ambos os quadris de 12 coelhos adultos foram examinados por ultra-sonografia power Doppler e cintilografia antes e após (7 dias e 6 semanas) uma osteotomia unilateral. A acurácia dos métodos de imagem foi avaliada usando-se o status operatório dos quadris and os resultados histomorfométricos (área vascular fracional e número de vasos/unidade de área) como medidas de referência. Uma diferença significativa foi observada entre o número médio de pixels presentes no fêmur proximal operado e não-operado ao exame de power Doppler obtido no estágio pós-operatório tardio (P=0.049). Embora ser atingir significância estatística, a área abaixo da curva (“area-under-the-curve”) dos exames de power Doppler (AUC=0.99) for numericamente superior à área abaixo da curva dos exames de cintilografia (AUC= 0.857±0.099) (P=0.15) para diferenciar fêmures proximais com relação a suas áreas vasculares fracionais no estágio pós-operatório tardio. Ao contrário, a cintilografia tendeu a apresentar uma “performance” diagnóstica superior (AUC=0.984±0.022) em relação ao Doppler (AUC=0.746±0.131) para demonstrar a quantidade de vasos por unidade de área (P=0.07) no estágio tardio. Nossos resultados despertam a importância de continuar-se investigando o valor de diferentes métodos de imagem para se avaliar achados patológicos após a realização de cirurgias do quadril. A ultra-sonografia power Doppler demonstrou maiores áreas abaixo da curva (representando maior acurácia) para discriminar áreas vasculares fracionais e cintilografia, para discriminar quantidade de vasos/unidade de área.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".