Perioperative morbidity and outcome of esophageal surgery in dogs and cats: 72 cases (1993–2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate perioperative morbidity and outcome in dogs and cats undergoing esophageal surgery. DESIGN Retrospective case series. ANIMALS 63 client-owned dogs and 9 client-owned cats. PROCEDURES Medical records of dogs and cats that underwent esophageal surgery were reviewed for information on signalment, history, results of preoperative diagnostic testing, condition treated, details of surgery, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Long-term follow-up data were obtained via veterinarian and client telephone conversations. The relationship between complications and survival to hospital discharge was evaluated by means of regression analysis. RESULTS The most common indication for surgical intervention was an esophageal foreign body in dogs (50/63 [79%]) and esophageal stricture in cats (3/9). Complications were documented in 54% (34/63) of dogs and 3 of 9 cats. The most common immediate postoperative complications were respiratory in nature (9 dogs, 1 cat). Partial esophagectomy and resection with anastomosis were significantly associated with the development of immediate postoperative complications in dogs. The most common delayed postoperative complications were persistent regurgitation (7 dogs) and esophageal stricture formation (3 dogs, 1 cat). For dogs, a mass lesion and increasing lesion size were significantly associated with the development of delayed postoperative complications. Six dogs (10%) and 1 cat died or were euthanized prior to discharge, and pneumomediastinum and leukopenia were negative prognostic factors for dogs being discharged from the hospital. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results of this study suggested that the short-term prognosis for dogs and cats that survive surgery for treatment of esophageal lesions is favorable, with 90% of patients discharged from the hospital (57/63 dogs; 8/9 cats). However, dogs treated for more extensive esophageal lesions as well as those undergoing esophagectomy or resection and anastomosis were more likely to develop postoperative complications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".