The Equine Temporomandibular Joint: Comparisons Between Standard and Needle Arthroscopic Examination of Cadaver Specimens and Standing Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Definitive diagnosis of equine temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) may require advanced diagnostic imaging. Arthroscopy is a modern, minimally invasive, diagnostic, and treatment modality. Standing arthroscopic treatment of joint disease is a relatively recent advance in equine surgery, despite which there are few published comparisons between the available arthroscopic systems. Objective: To compare and contrast two arthroscopic systems for assessing the equine temporomandibular joint compartments in cadavers and standing horses. Study design: Experimental study. Methods: Phase I involved the assessment of the discotemporal joint (DTJ) and discomandibular (DMJ) joint compartments of both temporomandibular joints (TMJ) of 14 cadaveric equine heads using a caudally placed arthroscopy portal. Joints were initially examined using the needle arthroscope and the results compared to the findings of examination using a 2.5 mm 30° arthroscope system (standard). Three healthy horses were subsequently examined to determine the validity of the procedure in live animals in Phase II. Results: Needle and standard arthroscopy, in combination with mandibular manipulation, allowed evaluation of the caudal aspects of both joint compartments of the TMJ in Phase I. However, the extreme margins of the joint were more commonly visualized using standard arthroscopy. Live horses in phase II were restrained in stocks and both the rostral and caudal aspects of the DTJ and DMJ compartments of both TMJs were examined successfully understanding sedation and local analgesia. The use of a modified Guenther speculum allowed the mandible to be manipulated and offset, which facilitated a complete examination of the joint compartments. Despite adverse behavior encountered during the procedure in one horse, no surgical complications ensued. Main Limitations: Not blinded-bias; learning curve. Conclusions: The needle arthroscope system is a relatively inexpensive diagnostic tool, which can be used to evaluate the TMJ in the absence of advanced diagnostic imaging such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. However, if arthroscopic treatment is required after advanced imaging and pre-operative diagnosis, superior image quality and ease of manipulation may favor the use of the standard equipment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".