A retrospective study of unilateral arytenoid lateralisation in the treatment of laryngeal paralysis in 100 dogs (1992–2000)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of unilateral arytenoid lateralisation as a surgical treatment for laryngeal paralysis in dogs. DESIGN: The case records of 100 dogs that received a unilateral arytenoid lateralisation for laryngeal paralysis between 1992 and 2000 were reviewed. The results of questionnaires on surgical outcome, formulated for the animal owner and the referring veterinarian, were analysed. Information obtained for dogs under 10 kg and dogs over 10 kg was analysed separately. RESULTS: The Labrador Retriever was the most commonly affected breed. The male:female ratio was 1.56:1 and the average age of presentation was 9.9 years. The most common month in which surgery was performed was October. The majority of owners (87.7%) felt that their dog's quality of life was improved in the 6 months after surgery. Thirty-three percent of dogs revisited the referring clinic with a respiratory problem following unilateral arytenoid lateralisation, and 10.7% of dogs were reported as having a post-surgical complication associated with the procedure. Following surgery, dogs under 10 kg revisited the referring veterinarian with a respiratory complication more often than dogs over 10 kg. Significantly fewer owners of dogs under 10 kg than owners of dogs over 10 kg felt that their dogs quality of life was improved by surgery (55% versus 93%). CONCLUSION: The majority of owners surveyed reported that unilateral arytenoid lateralisation had improved the quality of their dog's life during the first 6 postoperative months. Owner dissatisfaction with the results of surgery and the reported rate of re-presentation (for respiratory disease) may be higher for small (< 10 kg) dogs. A prospective study comparing the results of unilateral arytenoid lateralisation surgery in large and small dogs may be worthwhile in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".