Arthroscopic removal of osteochondral fragments in the dorsal pouch of the proximal intertarsal joint in 29 horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the radiographic and surgical findings of horses with osteochondral fragments (OCF) in the proximal intertarsal joint (PIJ) and to detail the technique for arthroscopic fragment retrieval and report outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: Twenty-nine horses (32 tarsi) with OCF in the PIJ. METHODS: Medical records of horses with radiographic evidence of OCF in the PIJ were reviewed. Clinical features, number of fragments, location, arthroscopic appearance, and outcome were recorded. Technical modifications with visual aids specific to this arthroscopic technique are described. RESULTS: Twenty-seven horses (93%) had radiographic evidence of osteochondritis dissecans lesions in the tarsocrural joint (TCJ). OCF were most commonly located distal to the medial trochlear ridge of the talus. In all cases, fragments were successfully retrieved with a technique based on exposing the fragments after resection of the proximal intertarsal joint capsule (PIJC). Fragments were visible from the TCJ prior resection of the PIJC in 4 of 32 tarsi. A third portal was created to access fragments located distal to the lateral trochlear ridge in 3 of 32 tarsi. Moderate intra-articular bleeding occurred when the PIJC was resected in 3 of 32 tarsi. One horse had postoperative swelling that resolved with conservative medical management. All horses with long-term follow-up available (16/29) started training or returned to their athletic career. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The arthroscopic technique based on resection of PIJC was effective in retrieving OCF in the PIJ and was associated with minor complications. The clinical relevance of these fragments in the PIJ remains unknown.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".