Comparison of Two Laparoscopic Suture Patterns for Repair of Experimentally Ruptured Urinary Bladders in Normal Neonatal Calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 laparoscopic suture patterns for repair of experimentally ruptured urinary bladders in normal neonatal calves. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental surgical study. ANIMALS: Thirty male Holstein calves. METHODS: A bladder defect was created in 24 anesthetized calves (day 0). They were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=6/group). In groups 1 and 3, the defect was closed laparoscopically using a one layer full thickness simple continuous (FTSC) suture pattern (pattern A). In groups 2 and 4, the defect was closed laparoscopically in 2 layers using a FTSC suture pattern followed by Lembert continuous suture pattern (pattern B). Groups 1 and 2 calves were euthanatized at the end of the surgery and groups 3 and 4 at day 10. Six healthy calves were also euthanatized and used as a control group. The bladders were harvested and tested for bursting strength (BS). The surgical time (ST) data from the two groups for each pattern were pooled. A Student t-test was used to compare ST data. For the BS data, a 2-factor ANOVA test with post-hoc Student t-test was used to determine if treatment, time, or treatment-time interaction was significant. A Dunnett's test was used to compare BS of the 4 treatment groups to the control group. P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Mean ST was significantly shorter for pattern A than for pattern B. In all treatment groups, the mean bladder BS (MBBS) was significantly lower than the MBBS for the control group. The MBBS was significantly lower for group 1 than for group 2. There was no significant difference in the MBBS between groups 3 and 4. CONCLUSION: In this study, a 1-layer laparoscopic closure technique had advantages compared with 2-layer laparoscopic closure technique. Further work is required before a 1-layer laparoscopic closure technique can be recommended clinically. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One-layer bladder closure is fast and safe in clinically normal calves and permits additional research to evaluate its safety in foals and clinical ruptures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".