Single-port laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy in dogs and cats: 25 cases (2009–2014)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the operative technique for single-port laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy (SPLC) in dogs and cats and evaluate clinical outcome for patients that underwent the procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 25 client-owned dogs (n = 22) and cats (3). PROCEDURES: Dogs and cats that underwent SPLC with 3 commercially available single-port devices between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively identified through a multi-institutional medical records review. Surgery was performed via a single-port device placed through a 1.5- to 3.0-cm abdominal incision either at the region of the umbilicus or caudal to the right 13th rib. The cryptorchidectomy was performed with graspers, a bipolar vessel sealing device, and a 30° telescope. RESULTS: SPLC was performed with a single-incision laparoscopic surgery port (n = 15), a multitrocar wound-retractor access system (8), or a metal resterilizable single-port access device (2). Median age was 365 days (range, 166 to 3,285 days). Median body weight was 18.9 kg (41.6 lb; range, 1.3 to 70 kg [2.9 to 154 lb]). Median surgical time was 38 minutes (range, 15 to 70 minutes). Thirty-two testes were removed (12 left, 6 right, and 7 bilateral). Four patients had 1 additional abdominal surgical procedure performed concurrently during SPLC. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were encountered. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that SPLC can be performed in a wide range of dogs and cats with cryptorchidism and can be combined with other elective laparoscopic surgical procedures. The SPLC technique was associated with a low morbidity rate and provided a potentially less invasive alternative to traditional open and multiport laparoscopic techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".