Recurrence of cervical intervertebral disc extrusion in 55 dogs after surgical decompression with or without prophylactic fenestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prophylactic fenestration (PF) of adjacent intervertebral discs decreases the recurrence rate (RR) of cervical intervertebral disc extrusion (C-IVDE) in small dogs undergoing ventral slot (VS) decompression, and whether PF increases perioperative complication risk. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study. SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 55 dogs. METHODS: Medical records of a mixed population of small dogs (<20 kg) treated with VS for C-IVDE with a minimum one-year follow-up were reviewed. During surgery, dogs underwent either single-site PF, multiple-site PF, or no PF. Perioperative complication rate and RR were compared between PF and non-PF groups using generalized linear models. Surgical time and neurologic grade (presurgery, post-surgery, at first recheck) were compared with Mann-Whitney test and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: A total of 55 dogs were included (PF: n = 18; non-PF: n = 37). Neurologic grades were similar at all timepoints. Median time to first recheck was 14 days (range: 5-56). Median follow-up time was 1380 days (range: 365-2777). Recurrence occurred in 25% of dogs (14/55), all in the non-PF group. Prophylactic fenestration was associated with a lower RR (p < .001). Surgery duration was longer in the PF group (158.0 ± 13.5 min) versus non-PF (118.0 ± 6.8 min, p = .017), but complication rates were similar (18.2%, p = .838) between groups. CONCLUSION: Recurrence of C-IVDE is more likely to occur at non-PF group than PF-group in a heterogenous population of small breed dogs. Prophylactic fenestration was not linked to increased complication risk. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Prophylactic fenestration might be safely considered to prevent C-IVDE recurrence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".