Evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted placement of jejunostomy feeding tubes in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility of performing laparoscopic-assisted placement of a jejunostomy feeding tube (J-tube) and compare complications associated with placement, short-term feedings, and medium-term healing with surgically placed tubes in dogs. DESIGN: Prospective study. ANIMALS: 15 healthy mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were randomly allocated to undergo open surgical or laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement. Required nutrients were administered by a combination of enteric and oral feeding while monitoring for complications. Radiographic contrast studies documented tube direction and location, altered motility, or evidence of stricture. RESULTS: Jejunostomy tubes were successfully placed in the correct location and direction in all dogs. In the laparoscopic group, the ileum was initially selected in 2 dogs, 2 dogs developed moderate hemorrhage at a portal site, and 2 J-tubes kinked during placement but were successfully readjusted postoperatively. All dogs tolerated postoperative feedings. All dogs developed minor ostomy site inflammation, and 1 dog developed bile-induced dermatitis at the ostomy site. Despite mild, transient neutrophilia, no significant difference was noted in WBC counts between groups. No dog had altered gastric motility or evidence of stricture, although the jejunopexy site remained identifiable in several dogs at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Requirements for successful J-tube placement were met by use of a laparoscopic-assisted technique, and postoperative complications were mild and comparable to those seen with surgical placement. Laparoscopic-assisted J-tube placement compares favorably to surgical placement in healthy dogs and should be considered as an option for dogs requiring enterostomy feeding but not requiring a celiotomy for other reasons.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".