Outcome of epidural catheterization for delivery of analgesics in horses: 43 cases (1998–2001)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine reasons for epidural catheter placement among horses examined at a veterinary teaching hospital, efficacy of epidural administration of analgesics, duration of catheter placement, reasons for catheter removal, and complications encountered. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 43 horses. PROCEDURE: Medical records were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 50 epidural catheters were placed in the 43 horses. Underlying conditions included fractures, lacerations, septic arthritis, myositis, perineal injuries, and cellulitis. Horses ranged from 2 to 21 years old and weighed between 365 and 795 kg (803 and 1,749 lb). Median duration of catheter placement was 96 hours (range, 1.5 to 480 hours). The response to epidural drug administration was reported as positive in 34 horses and negative in 4. There was no apparent response in 2 horses, and response could not be determined in 3. Three temporary patient-related complications associated with epidural catheter administration were observed. Technical problems associated with the epidural catheters included dislodgement of the catheter itself (7 catheters) or of the adapter or filter (5), obstruction (5), and leakage (5). Twenty-two catheters were removed because of resolution of the underlying condition, and 10 were removed because of complications. For 6 catheters, the reason for catheter removal was not recorded. The remaining 12 catheters were in place when the horses were euthanatized. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that epidural catheterization can be used successfully for repeated epidural delivery of analgesics and anesthetics in horses with various clinical conditions. Complications associated with epidural catheters or epidural drug administration were infrequent and transient.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".