Intra-articular implantation of gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge causes joint inflammation and impaired renal function in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge (GICS) can be used to treat intra-articular surgical site infections. High local concentrations of gentamicin can be reached for short periods; however the collagen vehicle may persist for much longer periods. We wished to determine the effect of sponge implantation on joint inflammation and renal function. METHODS: Eighteen medium sized mixed breed research dogs of hound type were randomized to two groups; arthroscopic implantation of GICS at gentamicin dose = 6 mg/kg (n = 9) or sham operation (n = 9). Endpoints consisted of joint inflammation measured by synovial fluid cell counts and cytokine concentrations; lameness measured by force plate asymmetry indices; and renal function measured by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) study. The prevalence of lesions associated with aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity was assessed by renal biopsy and transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge implantation caused joint inflammation (p <0.01), lameness (p = 0.04), and decreased GFR (p = 0.04). No difference was observed in the prevalence of renal lesions on biopsy between the treatment and control groups (p = 0.49). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge implantation causes joint inflammation and lameness as well as GFR reductions at the dose assessed. Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge are not recommended for intra-articular implantation in dogs.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".