Clinical use of antimicrobial regional limb perfusion in horses: 174 cases (1999–2009)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical use of regional limb perfusion with antimicrobials (A-RLP), complications, and outcome in a large series of patients. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 174 horses. PROCEDURES: Medical records of horses treated with A-RLP between 1999 and 2009 were reviewed. Signalment, primary complaint, horse use, etiology, duration of clinical signs, previous treatment, structures involved, concurrent conditions, A-RLP characteristics, additional treatments, complications, and outcome were recorded. At long-term follow-up, 2 outcomes were investigated: survival rate and return to previous use at the same or higher level. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Group 1 (96 horses) included septic synovitis. Group 2 (50 horses) included extrasynovial lacerations (23 horses) and fresh, minimally contaminated intrasynovial lacerations without evidence of established synovial infection (27 horses). Group 3 (28 horses) included miscellaneous other conditions. Only minor complications were reported in 12.26% of horses that received IV (n = 155) and 33% of horses that received intraosseous (27) A-RLP. Horses with septic synovitis had a lower survival rate (53.43%) than did horses with lacerations (91.89%). Within group 2, no significant differences in short- or long-term outcomes were found between horses with extrasynovial and fresh, minimally contaminated intrasynovial lacerations. For the horses returning to previous use, 80% of horses with septic synovitis and 72.72% of horses with lacerations were performing at the same or higher level at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of the present study indicated that A-RLP is a safe technique with minimal adverse effects. The IV route presented fewer complications than intraosseous injection. Horses with infection of synovial structures had a lower survival rate than did those with acute, minimally contaminated intrasynovial lacerations. The latter had a similar prognosis for horses with extrasynovial lacerations treated with A-RLP.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".