MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2542225398

Epidemiologia e risco anestésico de cães portadores de otohematoma

2016· article· es· W2542225398 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nhirneyla Marques Rodrigues, Ana Maria Quessada, Fabiane Leite da Silva, Esther Machado de Carvalho e Silva, João Moreira da Costa Neto, Wagner Costa Lima

Notice bibliographique

RevueACTA SCIENTIAE VETERINARIAE · 2016
Typearticle
Languees
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVeterinary Oncology Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineHematomaLeukocytosisSurgeryEhrlichiosisVeterinary medicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Otohematoma or aural hematoma in dogs is blood pooling within the ear cartilage plate, and stems from several causes (ear infections, ectoparasites and others). The formation of hematoma is by vascular injury, causing bleeding, generated by self-injury. This disease occurs especially in dogs of pendulous ears, and the concave surface of the ear is considered as the most frequent. The therapy to correct the lesion can be a clinical procedure; however, surgical drainage is the treatment of choice. This work aims to record the epidemiological aspects related to aural hematoma in dogs, as well as classify such patients as to the physical condition and anesthetic risk. Materials, Methods & Results: Twenty five dogs with aural hematoma submitted to surgical procedure were followed. During the data collection period (seven months), surgery to correct aural hematoma represented 19% of surgeries performed in dogs (total of surgeries: 474). The percentage of canine breeds affected was: mixed breed (64%; 16/25), german shepherd (24%; 6/25), labrador (4%; 1/25), waimaraner (4%; 1/25) and daschund (4%; 1/25). Most occurrences were observed in females aged 3-12 years. Most of the animals showed only one pina affected (96%; 24/25), and 52% (13/25) had hematoma in the right and 44% (11/25) in the left ear. Some of the patients had no hematologic abnormalities (48%; 12/25), but some animals showed normocytic normochromic anemia (36%, 9/25), leukocytosis (8%; 2/25) and thrombocytopenia (8%; 2/25). Among animals, there were only dogs classified as ASA II and ASA III with similar rates (56% and 44% respectively). No deaths were observed among cases analyzed. Discussion: The high prevalence of the disease in mongrel dogs can be explained by the great number of mongrel animals in the service analyzed. Aural hematoma was more frequent in older dogs probably because animals in this age group are more affected by otitis externa, which can predispose them to aural hematoma. Otohematoma was common in animals with pendulous ears, probably because these dogs are more prone to ear diseases than animals with erect ears. Females are more affected, and these data are different to those of other studies, and may be related to changes of the clientele among males and females. Only 4% (1/25) showed bilateral aural hematoma which, actually, is less common. Haematological abnormalities observed may be related to the appearance of aural hematoma, but were unspecific and common to several diseases. Animals classified as ASA II entered in this category for being carriers of mild haematological disorders, especially anemia (36%; 9/25). Dogs classified as ASA III showed signs of moderate systemic disease, and the main suspected disease was ehrlichiosis, which may be associated with aural hematoma. Animals underwent surgical procedure even though being classified as ASA II and III. Such procedure caused no detectable adverse effects and no deaths were recorded. It is expected that mortality is higher in patients classified in a higher grade. The absence of deaths can be related to ASA classification, which was only up to Grade III (moderate systemic disease). Moreover, surgery to drain aural hematoma is considered free of contamination, minimally invasive and without the involvement of important anatomical structures that could systemically compromise patients.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,644
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueACTA SCIENTIAE VETERINARIAEMême sujetVeterinary Oncology ResearchTravaux en français237 207