Laparoscopic treatment of ovarian remnant syndrome in dogs and cats: 7 cases (2010–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic treatment of ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS) in dogs and cats. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 7 client-owned dogs and cats. PROCEDURES: Medical records of dogs and cats with ORS that were treated laparoscopically at 3 large veterinary teaching hospitals were reviewed. Laparoscopic ovarian remnant resection was performed by means of either a 3-port or single-port technique with the patient in dorsal recumbency. The area caudal to both kidneys was thoroughly inspected for evidence of ovarian tissue by tilting the patient laterally. Any ovarian remnant tissue in these areas was resected with a bipolar vessel sealer. RESULTS: 5 female dogs and 2 female cats that had previously undergone ovariectomy or ovariohysterectomy were included in the study. Six procedures were performed with a standard 3-port technique, and 1 was performed with a single-port technique. Median surgery time was 90 minutes (range, 50 to 150 minutes). No patient required conversion to laparotomy. Six of the 7 patients had complete resolution of clinical signs after surgery. One patient underwent laparotomy 7 weeks after surgery for management of stump pyometra, but no further ovarian tissue was detected. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laparoscopic management of ORS in this cohort of dogs and cats was associated with minimal morbidity. Laparoscopic treatment of ORS in dogs and cats may be recommended for appropriately selected patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".