Long‐Term Outcome and Complications Following Prophylactic Laparoscopic‐Assisted Gastropexy in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the short- and long-term outcome (>12 months), complications, and owner satisfaction following prophylactic laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 49). METHODS: Dogs that underwent prophylactic LAG at 2 veterinary academic hospitals were studied. Surgical time, anesthesia time, concurrent intra- and extra-abdominal procedures, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded following review of medical records. Veterinarian and/or owner follow-up was obtained to determine outcome and satisfaction with LAG. RESULTS: Five of 49 dogs (10%) experienced complications related to abdominal access during LAG. Four percent (2/49) of dogs experienced an intraoperative complication. Follow-up information was available for 89% of dogs (44/49). Four dogs died of causes unrelated to LAG or gastric dilatation volvulus (GDV) in the follow-up period. Two dogs experienced major postoperative complications requiring additional veterinary intervention. Thirty percent (13 dogs) experienced a minor postoperative self-limiting wound-related complication. Median follow-up time was 698 days (range, 411-1825). No dogs experienced GDV. One hundred percent of dog owners were satisfied with LAG, would repeat the procedure in a future pet, and would recommend the procedure to a friend or family member. CONCLUSION: LAG was an effective procedure for prevention of GDV and was associated with high client satisfaction in this cohort of dogs. A moderate rate of postoperative wound complications occurred that were minor and self-limiting in nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".