Complications and outcomes following rectal pull-through surgery in dogs with rectal masses: 74 cases (2000–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of and factors associated with complications following rectal pull-through (RPT) surgery and the outcome for dogs with rectal tumors. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 74 dogs with rectal masses. PROCEDURES: Information regarding signalment, history, diagnostic testing, type of rectal disease, surgical details, and postoperative complications, treatments, and outcomes was obtained from medical records and follow-up communications. Survival times were calculated. Descriptive statistics were generated. Regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of various variables on the development of postsurgical complications and survival time. RESULTS: 58 (78.4%) dogs developed postsurgical complications, the most common of which was fecal incontinence with 42 (56.8%) dogs affected, of which 23 (54.8%) developed permanent incontinence. Other complications included diarrhea (n = 32), tenesmus (23), stricture formation (16), rectal bleeding (8), constipation (7), dehiscence (6), and infection (4). The rectal tumor recurred in 10 dogs. The median survival time was 1,150 days for all dogs and 726 days for dogs with malignant tumors. The 2 most common rectal masses were rectal carcinoma and rectal carcinoma in situ, and the dogs with these tumors had median survival times of 696 and 1,006 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dogs with rectal diseases that underwent RPT surgery had a high incidence of complications; however, those dogs had good local tumor control and survival times. The risk and impact of postsurgical complications on the quality of life and oncological outcomes should be discussed with owners before RPT surgery is performed in dogs with rectal masses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".