Incidence of Bandage-Associated Complications in Cats following Clean Orthopaedic Procedures: A Retrospective Study of 152 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To report the incidence of bandage-associated complications in cats following clean orthopaedic injury.Multi-institutional retrospective case series of 152 client-owned cats. Medical records were searched for cats that had a bandage placed after a clean orthopaedic injury. Data collected included: signalment, diagnosis, anatomical region, orthopaedic procedure, professional role of the person applying the bandage (specialist/resident/nurse), bandage duration, complications, and outcomes.A total of 152 cats had bandages placed after clean orthopaedic injuries. Complications were reported in 104 cats (68.4%). Bandage-related complications were mild in 64.4% cases, moderate in 32.7% cases, and severe 2.9% of cases. If a cat had a splint placed, it was 3.4 times more likely to have a more severe complication compared with a cat which did not require a splint.Bandage complications occur frequently in cats, and the use of splints was a significant predictor of increased complication severity. Clinicians should be particularly vigilant when bandaging limbs in cats, as complications secondary to bandaging occur frequently. These findings underscore the importance of appropriate case selection for bandage application and monitoring strategies to minimize the risk of complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".