Total Ankle Replacement Requiring Distal Tibiofibular Arthrodesis in a Dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This case report describes distal tibiofibular arthrodesis as a technique for achieving increased confluent bone support for the placement of oversized arthroplasty components for talocrural arthroplasty in an 18-month-old Labrador Retriever with talocrural osteoarthritis secondary to talar osteochondrosis. Computed tomography assessment for suitability for BioMedtrix canine ankle replacement surgery revealed the tibia to be undersized relative to the tibial component. Distal tibiofibular arthrodesis was performed to increase lateral bone support to permit placement of an otherwise oversized prosthesis. Subjective assessment of outcome with owner Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs questionnaire to 6 months postoperatively as well as radiological assessment to 4 months postoperatively documented significant improvement in lameness in the operated limb with no complications. Distal tibiofibular arthrodesis is a means by which to achieve increased bone support prior to BioMedtrix canine total ankle replacement surgery. The surgical technique described herein permitted placement of an oversized talocrural prosthesis in this patient with good clinical function. This technique may permit use of this arthroplasty system in otherwise undersized patients until such a time that smaller implants are available from the manufacturer.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".