The Experts below are selected from a list of 291 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ping Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up
Scientific reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P
-
comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury minimum 10 year follow up
Scientific Reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. The anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving Cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect.
Chunpeng Ren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up
Scientific reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P
-
comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury minimum 10 year follow up
Scientific Reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. The anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving Cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect.
Dorothy E. F. Mckeegan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Welfare assessment of novel on-farm killing methods for poultry
PloS one, 2019Co-Authors: Jessica Martin, Victoria Sandilands, Julian Sparrey, Laurence Baker, Laura M. Dixon, Dorothy E. F. MckeeganAbstract:There is a need for novel mechanical devices for dispatching poultry on farm following the introduction of EU Regulation (EC) no. 1099/2009 On the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. We examined three novel mechanical killing devices: Modified Armadillo, Modified Rabbit Zinger, a novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation device; and traditional manual Cervical Dislocation. The four killing methods were tested on 230 chickens across four batches. We measured behavioural, electroencephalogram and post-mortem outcomes in anesthetized laying hens and broilers at two life stages (juveniles and adults/slaughter age). Graeco Latin-Square designs systematically randomized killing treatment, bird type, age and kill order. All birds were lightly anaesthetized immediately prior to the killing treatment with inhalation of Sevoflurane. The novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation method had the highest kill success rate (single application attempt only, with no signs of recovery) of a mechanical method (96%). The Modified Armadillo was the least reliable with 49% kill success. Spectral analysis of electroencephalogram signals at 2 s intervals for successfully killed birds only revealed progressive decreases in median frequency alongside increases in total power. Later, total power decreased as the birds exhibited isoelectric electroencephalogram signal. Latencies to pre-defined spectral ranges associated with unconsciousness showed that birds subjected to manual and novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation achieved these states sooner than birds subjected to the modified Armadillo. Nevertheless all methods exhibited short latencies (
-
Welfare assessment of novel on-farm killing methods for poultry - Fig 8
2019Co-Authors: Jessica E. Martin, Victoria Sandilands, Julian Sparrey, Laurence Baker, Laura M. Dixon, Dorothy E. F. MckeeganAbstract:Summaries of the mean maximum durations (±SE) (s) across the three kill treatments (Modified Armadillo (MARM); novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation (NMCD); Modified Zinger (MZIN) and manual Cervical Dislocation (MCD)) for the cranial reflexes: (a) jaw tone; (b) nictitating membrane; (c) pupillary reflex; and (d) rhythmic breathing. No common superscript indicates that there is a significant difference between the treatment groups.
-
Mean (±SE) age and weight at time of killing for each bird type and age group, as well as numbers of birds allocated to each killing treatment (Modified Armadillo (MARM); Modified Zinger (MZIN); novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation (NMCD) and manual
2019Co-Authors: Jessica E. Martin, Victoria Sandilands, Julian Sparrey, Laurence Baker, Laura M. Dixon, Dorothy E. F. MckeeganAbstract:Mean (±SE) age and weight at time of killing for each bird type and age group, as well as numbers of birds allocated to each killing treatment (Modified Armadillo (MARM); Modified Zinger (MZIN); novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation (NMCD) and manual Cervical Dislocation (MCD).
-
Summary statistics (mean, SE, minimum, and maximum) of behavioural/reflex durations post killing treatment application, as well as statistical differences (F statistic and p value) dependent on killing treatment (Modified Armadillo (MARM); novel mech
2019Co-Authors: Jessica E. Martin, Victoria Sandilands, Julian Sparrey, Laurence Baker, Laura M. Dixon, Dorothy E. F. MckeeganAbstract:Summary statistics (mean, SE, minimum, and maximum) of behavioural/reflex durations post killing treatment application, as well as statistical differences (F statistic and p value) dependent on killing treatment (Modified Armadillo (MARM); novel mechanical Cervical Dislocation (NMCD); Modified Zinger (MZIN) and manual Cervical Dislocation (MCD)).
-
Welfare Risks of Repeated Application of On-Farm Killing Methods for Poultry
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2018Co-Authors: Jessica Martin, Victoria Sandilands, Julian Sparrey, Laurence Baker, Dale A. Sandercock, Nick H.c. Sparks, Dorothy E. F. MckeeganAbstract:Council Regulation (EC) no. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing restricts the use of manual Cervical Dislocation in poultry on farms in the European Union (EU) to birds weighing up to 3 kg and 70 birds per person per day. However, few studies have examined whether repeated application of manual Cervical Dislocation has welfare implications and whether these are dependent on individual operator skill or susceptibility to fatigue. We investigated the effects of repeated application (100 birds at a fixed killing rate of 1 bird per 2 min) and multiple operators on two methods of killing of broilers, laying hens, and turkeys in commercial settings. We compared the efficacy and welfare impact of repeated application of Cervical Dislocation and a percussive killer (Cash Poultry Killer, CPK), using 12 male stockworkers on three farms (one farm per bird type). Both methods achieved over 96% kill success at the first attempt. The killing methods were equally effective for each bird type and there was no evidence of reduced performance with time and/or bird number. Both methods of killing caused a rapid loss of reflexes, indicating loss of brain function. There was more variation in reflex durations and post-mortem damage in birds killed by Cervical Dislocation than that found using CPK. High neck Dislocation was associated with improved kill success and more rapid loss of reflexes. The CPK caused damage to multiple brain areas with little variation. Overall, the CPK was associated with faster abolition of reflexes, with fewer birds exhibiting them at all, suggestive of better welfare outcomes. However, technical difficulties with the CPK highlighted the advantages of Cervical Dislocation, which can be performed immediately with no equipment. At the killing rates tested, we did not find evidence to justify the current EU limit on the number of birds that one operator can kill on–farm by manual Cervical Dislocation.
Rujie Qin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up
Scientific reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P
-
comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury minimum 10 year follow up
Scientific Reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. The anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving Cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect.
Peng Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up
Scientific reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P
-
comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic Cervical Dislocation combined with spinal cord injury minimum 10 year follow up
Scientific Reports, 2020Co-Authors: Chunpeng Ren, Rujie Qin, Peng Wang, Ping WangAbstract:Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower Cervical Dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic Cervical Dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, Cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. The anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving Cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect.