Injectable Liposome Bupivacaine and Surgical Site Infection of Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Research on liposome bupivacaine injection and surgical site infection (SSI) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of SSI in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) with and without local liposome bupivacaine administration. We hypothesized that SSI risk in TPLO is not affected by administrating liposome bupivacaine. Materials and Methods : Medical records were searched for TPLO cases with (NOCITA) or without (non-NOCITA) intraoperative local injection of liposome bupivacaine. Signalments, surgery date, anesthesia time, follow-up durations, SSI, bacterial culture result, recovered bacteria, and treatment for SSI were included. Results : Three hundred and thirty-four cases from 294 client owned dogs were included. Dogs with bilateral TPLO and additional surgeries in a single session were excluded. SSI was noticed in 5/157 cases (3.18%) for non-NOCITA, and 23/ 177 cases (13%) for NOCITA. There was a statistically significant difference of SSI rates between groups, with higher rates for NOCITA ( p = 0.001). Discussion/Conclusion : SSI was significantly more frequently observed in the NOCITA group compared to non-NOCITA. However, this higher SSI rate is similar to previous reports in TPLO SSI (2.9–25.9%) (1). A previous study reported similar numbers as well with 13.9% SSI after local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine in TPLO (2). SSI rate was higher in the NOCITA group in our study; further research must be done to identify clinical contraindications for NOCITA use. Acknowledgements : There was no proprietary interest or funding provided for this project. Publication History Article published online: 11 September 2023 © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".