Survival rates for horses undergoing stapled small intestinal anastomosis: 84 cases (1988–1997)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether location and type of small intestinal anastomosis and other variables were associated with short- and long-term survival rates in horses undergoing stapled small intestinal anastomosis. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 84 horses that underwent small intestinal anastomosis. PROCEDURE: Medical records from 1988 to 1997 were examined for horses that underwent stapled small intestinal anastomosis. Horses were allotted into 4 groups: jejunojejunostomy (n = 27), jejunoileostomy (11), jejunoileocecostomy with small intestinal resection (20), and jejunoileocecostomy without small intestinal resection (26). Survival rates and other variables were determined. RESULTS: Horses that underwent jejunoileocecostomy without resection had a significantly higher survival rate at all intervals than did horses in the other 3 groups. At 180 and 365 days after surgery, horses that underwent jejunojejunostomy had a significantly lower survival rate than those that underwent jejunoileocecostomy with intestinal resection. Horses that underwent jejunoileocecostomy with intestinal resection had a significantly higher survival rate at 1 year, compared with the combined jejunojejunostomy and jejunoileostomy groups. Preoperative heart rate was inversely associated with survival rate. Overall survival rates at discharge and 1 year were 81 and 56%, respectively. For horses that underwent small intestinal resection, survival rates at discharge and 1 year were 65 and 47%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Horses that underwent anastomosis of the small intestine to the cecum without resection had the highest survival rate, compared with horses that required intestinal resection. In some instances, resection and anastomosis involving the cecum had better prognosis than resections involving 2 segments of the small intestine.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".