Surgical Treatment of Lumbosacral Instability Caused by Discospondylitis in Four Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a surgical technique involving distraction and stabilization of the lumbo-sacral vertebral segment using an external skeletal fixator in dogs with lumbosacral instability caused by discospondylitis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Four client-owned dogs. METHODS: Medical records of all dogs diagnosed with discospondylitis from 1994 to 1997 were identified and reviewed. Four dogs with lumbosacral discospondylitis requiring surgical treatment were then specifically studied. Surgical technique, clinical signs, preoperative diagnostic investigation, radiographic findings, and the results of short-term and long-term reevaluations were recorded. RESULTS: Twelve dogs with discospondylitis were identified, 4 of which had lumbosacral discospondylitis. These 4 dogs underwent surgical distraction and stabilization because they failed to respond to medical treatment. Three dogs received a cancellous bone graft between L7 and S1 and had rapid interbody fusion of this vertebral segment. The dog that did not receive a graft did not have interbody fusion at the time of fixator removal. This did not affect the final clinical outcome. Lumbosacral pain and neurological deficits present before surgery rapidly subsided after the procedure. All dogs received concurrent antibiotic treatment for a minimum of 4 weeks. All dogs were clinically normal at the time of fixator removal and all continued to do well during the follow-up period (8-48 months; mean, 27.5 months). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lumbosacral discospondylitis may not respond well to conservative treatment because of the mobility of the affected space. Surgical treatment involving distraction and stabilization to obtain intervertebral fusion is very effective in treating lumbosacral instability caused by discospondylitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".