Thoracoscopy with Concurrent Esophagoscopy for Persistent Right Aortic Arch in 9 Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the diagnosis, treatment, and short-term outcome in dogs with suspected persistent right aortic arch (PRAA) undergoing thoracoscopy with concurrent esophagoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series. ANIMALS: Dogs with suspected PRAA (n=9). METHODS: Medical records were reviewed from 2012 to 2016. Dogs undergoing thoracoscopy for PRAA at 3 referral hospitals were included. Signalment, clinical signs, diagnostic imaging, anesthesia protocol (including the use of one-lung ventilation), surgical approach, complications, and short-term outcome were recorded. Dogs underwent a left-sided intercostal thoracoscopic approach with concurrent intraoperative esophagoscopy. The ligamentum arteriosum (LA) and constricting fibers were divided using a vessel-sealing device using a 3 or 4 port thoracoscopy technique. Visualization and dissection of the LA was aided by transesophageal illumination by esophagoscopy. RESULTS: Thoracoscopy confirmed PRAA in 9 dogs, with an aberrant left subclavian artery (LS) identified in 5 dogs. Major complications occurred in 2 dogs: postoperative hemorrhage from the LS and esophageal perforation, which resulted in euthanasia. Median follow-up was 250 days (range, 56-1,595). Regurgitation resolved in 4 of 8 surviving dogs. One dog had recurrence of regurgitation 1,450 days postoperatively, esophageal compression by the LS was identified, and regurgitation resolved following LS transection. CONCLUSION: Esophagoscopy aided identification and dissection of the LA in all cases. Due to the potential for the LS to cause clinical esophageal constriction postoperatively, a recommendation for LS transection may be warranted. Vascular clips can also be considered as an alternative for vessel ligation to avoid complications associated with vessel-sealing device use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".