Evaluation of intra-articular and subcutaneous administration of meloxicam for postoperative analgesia following stifle surgery in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of meloxicam when given by intra-articular (IA) and subcutaneous (SC) routes of administration for postoperative analgesia versus a placebo for dogs undergoing stifle surgery. Twenty-five dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups, each with nine dogs, before surgical repair of twenty-seven stifles using a modified lateral retinacular imbrication technique. Group 1 dogs received IA administration of meloxicam and SC placebo. Group 2 dogs received IA placebo and SC meloxicam. Group 3 dogs received IA and SC administration of placebo. Dogs were assessed for pain by blinded observers using a visual analog scale (VAS), a numerical pain scoring system (NPS), and measurement of pain threshold using an algometer applied to the affected stifle. Assessments were made prior to pre-medication, postoperatively at the time of extubation, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours following extubation. The results did not identify any significant effect of treatment between groups on the VAS data, algometer readings, or NPS data. Significantly increased VAS scores and decreased algometer readings were noted from preoperative to postoperative times. No differences were noted in early postoperative pain between dogs treated with IA meloxicam, SC meloxicam, or placebo. While intra-articular non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drug administration has shown efficacy in joint surgery for people, we did not find any evidence to support its use in dogs undergoing repair of CCLR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".