Percutaneous extracapsular repair as a cost-effective alternative for treating cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the duration of surgery, cost, and outcomes associated with percutaneous placement of a lateral fabellotibial suture (pLFS) in dogs with unilateral cranial cruciate ligament deficiency (CCLD) treated in a low-cost clinical setting. Study design Block randomized prospective clinical trial on 24 dogs. Methods Dogs underwent an exploratory arthrotomy and extracapsular repair (ECR) or pLFS. Intraoperative findings, cost, and duration of surgery were recorded. Each dog was evaluated preoperatively and 2, 6, and 12 weeks after surgery with a standardized owners’ questionnaire, clinical examination, radiography, thermal imaging, and pressure gait analysis. Outcomes were evaluated longitudinally within dogs and between groups. Results The pLFS technique was faster (about 20 min) and more cost-effective (by about 100$) than the ECR repair (p = 0.01 and 0.03). The only major complication consisted of a surgical infection requiring revision surgery after pLFS. Limbs had less reduction in thigh diameter 2 weeks after pLFS (−1.2 ± 0.05%) compared to those treated with ECR (−5.5 ± 0.04%, p = 0.03). The pressure placed on the operated limb averaged 78% of that of the contralateral limb 2 weeks after pLFS compared to 43% after ECR (p = 0.04). Similar results were obtained when comparing the ratio of activated sensors and relative stance time. No differences in owner assessment, radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, lameness scores, girth diameter, and gait analysis at the walk and trot were detected between groups. Conclusion The pLFS was faster, more cost-effective, and improved limb function at 2 weeks compared to the ECR. These results justify the consideration of the pLFS as a low-cost alternative to ECR.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".