Arytenoid Lateralization for Management of Combined Laryngeal Paralysis and Laryngeal Collapse in Small Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify combined laryngeal paralysis and collapse in small dogs and describe postoperative outcome after arytenoid lateralization. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. ANIMALS: Small nonbrachycephalic breed dogs with laryngeal paralysis and collapse (n = 6). METHODS: Medical records of small breed dogs with airway problems and undergoing laryngeal surgery (January-December 2008) were reviewed. Dogs with combined laryngeal paralysis and laryngeal collapse (LPLC) had arytenoid lateralization. The immediate, 4 week and 6 month postoperative outcomes were described. RESULTS: Direct visual laryngeal exam under a light plane of anesthesia revealed bilateral failure of arytenoid and vocal fold movement and concurrent bilateral medial folding with contact of the cuneiform processes in all dogs. None of the dogs had intra- or immediate postoperative complications after arytenoid lateralization. Two dogs required a 2nd contralateral procedure. Follow-up after 6 months revealed marked improvement in clinical signs related to upper airway obstruction, but all dogs continued to have mild respiratory noise. CONCLUSION: Concurrent laryngeal paralysis and collapse should be considered as part of the differential diagnosis for small, nonbrachycephalic dogs with upper airway disease. Arytenoid lateralization resulted in improvement of clinical signs related to obstructive airway disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".