Comparação entre a técnica de substituição do ligamento redondo por implante de fascia lata bubalina preservada em glicerina e o uso de pino transarticular na redução e na estabilização da luxação coxofemoral experimentalmente induzida em cães Comparation between the technique of substitution of the round ligamentum by glycerin-preserved bubaline fascia lata implant and the use of transarticular pin in the redution and stabilization of experimentally induzed coxofemoral luxation in dogs

Compararam-se duas técnicas cirúrgicas de redução e estabilização da articulação coxofemoral experimentalmente luxada em cães. Dois grupos de animais, submetidos às respectivas técnicas após a indução cirúrgica da luxação, foram acompanhados clínica e radiograficamente por um período de 60 dias, findos os quais, realizaram-se avaliações macroscópica e histológica e teste de tensiometria das articulações. Cada grupo foi constituído por oito animais, clinicamente sadios, com pesos entre 5 e 20kg. Os animais submetidos ao implante de fáscia apresentaram, ao exame físico, evolução da deambulação significativamente precoce em relação aos do grupo submetido ao implante de pino de Steinmann, além de menor grau de atrofia muscular. Os testes de tensiometria, as avaliações macroscópicas e radiográficas e os exames histológicos não diferiram entre os grupos, evidenciando também que ambas as técnicas não geraram alterações deletérias à articulação operada. Conclui-se que a técnica de estabilização da articulação coxofemoral com implante de fascia lata foi clinicamente eficaz e vantajosa quando comparada à técnica do pino transarticular.<br>It was compared both surgical techniques of reduction and stabilization of experimentally luxated coxofemoral join in dog. Two groups were submitted to the techniques after surgical induction of the luxation. All animals were clinically and radiografically observed during 60 days. After that, a macroscopic study, an histological exam, and a tensiometry test in the articulations were performed. Each group had eight healthy animals, weighting from 5 to 20kg. The most important advantage was related to the deambulation, which the animals submited to the facia lata implant showed a faster evolution after the surgery at the physical exam, and muscular atrophy in a smaller degree. The tensiometry tests, the radiographic and the histological exams did not present important differences between both groups, but they were useful to show that the two techniques did not cause alterations in the studied articulation. It can be concluded that the stabilization of the coxofemoral articulation using bubaline fascia lata implant was clinically efficient and more advantageous compared to the transarticular pin technique

BioSimulators: a central registry of simulation engines and services for recommending specific tools

Computational models have great potential to accelerate bioscience, bioengineering, and medicine. However, it remains challenging to reproduce and reuse simulations, in part, because the numerous formats and methods for simulating various subsystems and scales remain siloed by different software tools. For example, each tool must be executed through a distinct interface. To help investigators find and use simulation tools, we developed BioSimulators (https://biosimulators.org), a central registry of the capabilities of simulation tools and consistent Python, command-line and containerized interfaces to each version of each tool. The foundation of BioSimulators is standards, such as CellML, SBML, SED-ML and the COMBINE archive format, and validation tools for simulation projects and simulation tools that ensure these standards are used consistently. To help modelers find tools for particular projects, we have also used the registry to develop recommendation services. We anticipate that BioSimulators will help modelers exchange, reproduce, and combine simulations.[GRAPHICS]

BioSimulators: A central registry of simulation engines and services for recommending specific tools.

Computational models have great potential to accelerate bioscience, bioengineering, and medicine. However, it remains challenging to reproduce and reuse simulations, in part, because the numerous formats and methods for simulating various subsystems and scales remain siloed by different software tools. For example, each tool must be executed through a distinct interface. To help investigators find and use simulation tools, we developed BioSimulators (https://biosimulators.org), a central registry of the capabilities of simulation tools and consistent Python, command-line&nbsp;and containerized interfaces to each version of each tool. The foundation of BioSimulators is standards, such as CellML, SBML, SED-ML&nbsp;and the COMBINE archive format, and validation tools for simulation projects and simulation tools that ensure these standards are used consistently. To help modelers find tools for particular projects, we have also used the registry to develop recommendation services. We anticipate that BioSimulators will help modelers exchange, reproduce, and combine simulations