Total laparoscopic gastropexy using 1 simple continuous barbed suture line in 63 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use and outcome of a single, simple continuous, barbed suture line for prophylactic, total laparoscopic gastropexy in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-center, retrospective case series. ANIMALS: Sixty-three client-owned dogs. METHODS: Medical records of dogs undergoing total laparoscopic gastropexy using a barbed suture at 4 academic veterinary hospitals from 2011-2015 were reviewed. Data collected included signalment, procedure time, procedure-associated complications, short-term complications, and long-term outcome. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia in dorsal to dorsal-left oblique recumbency. Laparoscopic ports were placed on ventral midline in 1 of 3 port configurations, and 5 mm laparoscopic needle drivers were used for intracorporeal sutured gastropexy with unidirectional barbed suture. The gastropexy was positioned just caudal to the 13th rib, 2-4 cm lateral to the rectus abdominis muscle. RESULTS: Sixty-three dogs underwent total laparoscopic gastropexy with a single, simple continuous, barbed suture line. Median gastropexy surgery time was 70 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 60-90 minutes). One dog sustained splenic laceration from Veress needle penetration during initial abdominal insufflation. Short term (>24 hours to 6 months postoperative) complications included incisional seroma formation (n = 2) and suture reaction (n = 1). Long term (>6 months postoperative) complications included intermittent regurgitation and chronic diarrhea in 1 dog. Fifteen dogs had postoperative ultrasound and all had intact gastropexy sites. CONCLUSION: Total laparoscopic barbed gastropexy using a single, simple continuous, barbed suture line in dogs is safe and results in an intact gastropexy long term.
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 | 0.001 | 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".