Long‐term clinical outcomes and retrieval analysis of a cementless total knee replacement in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe long-term outcomes and report post-retrieval implant analysis following cementless total knee replacement (TKR) in a dog. ANIMAL: A seven-year-old, male neutered, Labrador retriever. METHODS: The dog presented for evaluation of chronic left pelvic limb lameness. Orthopedic examination identified bilateral cranial drawer and medial buttress. Radiographs revealed severe bilateral osteoarthritis with moderate joint effusion/synovial hypertrophy. Given the end-stage osteoarthritis, TKR was considered more appropriate than tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO). The dog underwent a left cementless TKR. RESULTS: Immediate postoperative radiographs showed appropriate implant positioning. Moderate left pelvic limb lameness with full, pain free and stable stifle range of motion (ROM) was documented at 2 weeks. Increased left hindlimb weight-bearing with a peak vertical force of 70% bodyweight (BW) versus 50% BW on the contralateral leg was reported at 6 weeks. Radiographs showed good implant osseointegration. Left stifle ROM was 50°/170°, a 30° increase compared to preoperative values. Additional rechecks at 14 and 30 weeks showed gradual improvement in stifle ROM and weight-bearing. The dog was euthanized 6 years after surgery for reasons unrelated to TKR. Radiographs demonstrated static implant position without signs of osteolysis and gross examination revealed mild polyethylene wear on the caudal aspects of the tibial insert. Histological evaluation of the implant-bone interface showed extensive and robust osseointegration. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates that cementless TKR can be associated with excellent clinical function over the course of at least 6 years and suggests that early surgical intervention could be considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".