Outcome after Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy and Modified Maquet Procedure in Dogs with Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO) and modified Maquet procedure (MMP) for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR) in dogs using clinical and radiographic evaluation and treadmill-based force plate gait analysis. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 31 dogs, 35 joints) and compared with a control group of 16 healthy Labrador Retrievers. Outcomes after surgery were compared by clinical orthopaedic assessment, radiographic evaluation and force plate gait analysis performed preoperatively, and then at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. For objective comparison of ground reaction forces, the data were compared with the control group. Major complications were reported. RESULTS: A significant improvement in ground reaction forces was reached in all surgically treated dogs. No significant difference was found between the surgical methods at any postoperative re-examination. With regard to peak vertical force (PVF), there were significantly more patients with TPLO within the reference range of healthy dogs at the 3 months re-examination than dogs with MMP. There was no significant difference in mean value comparisons between TPLO and control groups 6 months postoperatively. Compared with the control group, mean values of 93.9% (PVF) and 85.9% (vertical impulse [VI]) were reached by the TPLO group and 89.4% (PVF) and 79.9% (VI) by the MMP group, 6 months postoperatively.No significant differences were found regarding major complications or progression of osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant differences were found between the surgical methods, TPLO patients showed superiority with regard to clinical outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".