Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). METHODS: Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. RESULTS: Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".