Comparison of treatments for equine laryngeal hemiplegia using computational fluid dynamic analysis in an equine head model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is gaining momentum as a useful mechanism for analyzing obstructive disorders and surgeries in humans and warrants further development for application in equine surgery. While advancements in procedures continue, much remains unknown about the specific impact that different surgeries have on obstructive airway disorders. The objective of this study was to apply CFD analysis to an equine head inhalation model replicating recurrent laryngeal neuropathy (RLN) and four surgical procedures. CFD was hypothesized to corroborate the order of the different trials based on impedance and to provide an impedance value numerically similar to the experimental results. In addition, it was hypothesized that CFD would offer insights into the changes in airflow associated with each procedure on a finite scale. Methods: An equine cadaver head underwent airflow testing and computed tomographic (CT) scans to replicate the disease state (RLN) and four surgical procedures: laryngoplasty, combined laryngoplasty and corniculectomy, corniculectomy, and partial arytenoidectomy. Pressure measurements at the pharynx and trachea were recorded, along with airflow data, for each trial. Results and discussion: The CFD and experimental models showed that partial arytenoidectomy had the lowest impedance in this case. While this procedure did have the largest rima glottidis area, the remaining procedural order was not dictated by the rima glottidis area. Recurrent laryngeal neuropathy and combined laryngoplasty with corniculectomy models showed negative pressure concentration on the luminal surface of the left arytenoid cartilage, which indicated a greater collapsing force on the tissue in this region. Narrowing within the caudal larynx at the level of the saccule showed increased negative pressure and higher velocity in the procedures with greater impedance, while partial arytenoidectomy exhibited more uniform pressure and velocity. Although this specific experimental head model contradicted previous flow studies, the CFD model reflected the experimental findings for the procedure with the least impedance and provided some insights into why these discrepancies occurred in this particular case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".