ArticleEquine veterinary journal2025
Experimental comparison of caudal wedge ostectomy to cranial wedge ostectomy for surgical treatment of overriding/impinging spinous processes in horses.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experimental comparison of caudal wedge ostectomy to cranial wedge ostectomy for surgical treatment of overriding/impinging spinous processes in horses.Equine veterinary journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCaudal wedge ostectomy has not been investigated for overriding or impinging spinous processes (SPs).
objectivesTo establish the feasibility of caudal wedge ostectomy and compare measures of surgical trauma and error between hypothetical caudal and cranial wedge ostectomies on SPs of different inclinations. STUDY
designExperimental, method comparison study.
methodsComputed tomography and caudal wedge ostectomy surgery were performed on four cadavers. Observations, technical difficulties, and surgical errors were recorded. Radiographs from 67 horses with overriding/impinging SPs were reviewed. Hypothetical 'ideal' caudal and cranial wedge ostectomies, and 'error' ostectomies 12° from ideal, were drawn at sites of impingement. Ostectomy area/SP width, ostectomy length/SP width, absolute difference of exit angles (angle ostectomy exits the SP) from 90°, and number of error ostectomies failing to exit the SP (never-ending-cuts [NEC]) were calculated. Continuous variables were compared between techniques in caudally and cranially inclined SP groups using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Proportions of NEC were compared using McNemar's tests.
resultsNo surgical errors were recorded with caudal wedge ostectomy. Median ostectomy area/SP width was lower for caudal versus cranial wedge ostectomy in caudally (14.32, interquartile-range [IQR] 9.72-20.34 vs. 25.57, IQR 17.74-33.06; p < 0.001) and cranially inclined SP groups (11.78, IQR 7.98-17.19 vs. 19.62, IQR 13.65-28.68; p < 0.001). Median difference in exit angles from 90° was smaller for caudal versus cranial wedge ostectomies in caudally (34.77°, IQR 26.85°-45.91° vs. 67.54°, IQR 58.13°-74.55°; p < 0.001) and cranially inclined SP groups (49.14°, IQR 35.61°-59.33° vs. 62.84°, IQR 55.34°-70.61°; p < 0.001). The proportion of NEC was lower for caudal versus cranial wedge ostectomy in caudally (37.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.4%-45.8%; n = 50/133 vs. 96.2%, 95% CI 93.0%-99.5%; n = 128/133; p < 0.001), but not in cranially inclined SP groups (76.8%, 95% CI 70.9%-82.7%; n = 152/198 vs. 84.3%, 95% CI 79.3%-89.4%, n = 167/198; p = 0.06). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Potential bias drawing 'ideal' ostectomy.
conclusionsExperimentally, caudal wedge ostectomy was feasible, removed less bone, and resulted in fewer NEC in caudally inclined SPs. Further investigation of the technique is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.