MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156177079

Long-Term Outcome in Dogs After Surgical Repair of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Disease

2014· article· en· W2156177079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sari Mölsä

Bibliographic record

VenueTyöväentutkimus Vuosikirja · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCruciate ligamentSurgeryTerm (time)Anterior cruciate ligament
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) disease is one of the most common causes of lameness in dogs. Surgical treatment is recommended to stabilize the stifle joint, alleviate pain, and delay the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). A variety of surgical techniques has been introduced and can be broken down into the more traditional intracapsular ligament replacement and extracapsular suture techniques and the newer neutralizing dynamic osteotomy techniques. Although an enormous amount of literature is available concerning this disease, surprisingly few studies have assessed surgical outcome with objective evaluation methods and comparison between groups. Previous studies have demonstrated significant improvement of limb function after CCL surgery. However, OA has been shown to progress in most patients, and this may cause deterioration in the function of the surgically treated limb over time. Long-term follow-up studies that include objective evaluation methods designed for assessing orthopedic outcome are needed. This thesis aimed to evaluate the long-term surgical outcome and signs of chronic pain after CCL surgery. Also, outcomes between the intracapsular, extracapsular and osteotomy techniques were compared. A multimodal approach, including an owner questionnaire and assessment of chronic pain using the validated Helsinki Chronic Pain Index (HCPI), orthopedic and radiographic examinations, force plate analysis, and as a new evaluation method, a physiotherapeutic examination was included. To provide reference values, clinically healthy Rottweilers and Labrador Retrievers were examined. A long-term retrospective follow-up with a mean time interval of at least 2.7 years between the surgery and evaluation was conducted. Of the 206 surgically treated dogs that were evaluated by their owners, 31.1% had a HCPI value ≥ 12, indicating pain. Of the 47 dogs evaluated by a veterinarian 31.9% showed a pain response to flexion/extension of the surgically treated joint. In addition to the unilaterally treated CCL rupture, contralateral stifle joint pathology and other orthopedic problems were frequently diagnosed during the evaluation. When symmetry of weight bearing was evaluated in dogs with no other orthopedic findings (n=21),approximately 30% of dogs had decreased dynamic and static weight bearing in the surgically treated limbs. Also, goniometric angles of the surgically treated limbs remained inferior to those of healthy limbs, and impairment of active range of motion was frequently observed. The owner assessments revealed no significant differences between the surgical techniques in long-term outcome. However, differences were seen in clinical evaluation of dynamic and static weight bearing between intracapsular and osteotomy technique groups. Although the retrospective study design and low sample size have to be acknowledged and may cause bias to the results, osteotomy techniques may offer long-term limb function that is superior to that achieved with the intracapsular technique. The low number of dogs treated with the extracapsular technique did not allow comparison of dynamic or static weight bearing to other technique groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTyöväentutkimus VuosikirjaSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207