Use of laterally placed vacuum drains for management of aural hematomas in five dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE DESCRIPTION: 5 dogs (a Newfoundland, Golden Retriever, Shiba Inu, Staffordshire Terrier, and Vizsla) were referred for evaluation and treatment of unilateral aural hematomas within a week after their formation. CLINICAL FINDINGS: Aural hematomas involved the left (3) or right (2) ears. TREATMENT AND OUTCOME: With patients under anesthesia, the aural hematomas were approached surgically from the convex, or lateral, pinnal surface. Two small incisions were used to position a vacuum drain into the incised hematoma cavity. The drain exited at the base of the pinna and adjacent cervical skin. The free end of the drain was attached to a vacuum reservoir for 18 to 21 days. Drains and skin sutures were removed at this time along with the protective Elizabethan collar. All hematomas resolved and surgical sites healed during the minimum 6-month follow-up period. Cosmetic results were considered excellent in 4 of 5 patients. Slight wrinkling of the pinna in 1 patient resulted from asymmetric enlargement of the cartilaginous walls of the hematoma, where vacuum application resulted in a slight folding of the redundant lateral cartilage wall. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The described treatment was efficient, economical, and minimally invasive and required no bandaging or wound care. Placement of the drain tubing on the convex (lateral) aspect sheltered the system from displacement by patients with an Elizabethan collar in place. Overall cosmetic results were excellent; asymmetric enlargement of the cartilaginous walls of the hematoma with slight folding of the pinna was seen in 1 patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".