Laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy with a vessel‐sealing device in dorsal recumbent horses: 43 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy with a vessel-sealing device in dorsal recumbent horses. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Forty-three male horses. METHODS: Food was withheld for 36 hours before horses were placed under general anesthesia and positioned in dorsal recumbency. One laparoscopic portal and 2 instrument portals were placed for the laparoscopic procedure. A third instrument portal was created in bilateral cryptorchid horses. A vessel-sealing device was used for hemostasis and transection of retained testes. Descended testes were removed via closed castration with primary closure of the scrotal incision. Time required for removal of the retained testis and perioperative complications were recorded. Short-term (14, 30, 60 days) and long-term follow-up (>1.5 years) consisted of telephone interview with owners and referring veterinarians. RESULTS: Forty-three male horses underwent laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy. Thirteen horses were bilateral cryptorchids, 19 were unilateral cryptorchids with a descended testis, and 11 were unilateral cryptorchids with 1 testis previously removed. Inguinal testes, identified in 5 horses, were pulled into the abdomen prior to excision. The vaginal ring was apposed with endoscopic staples in 3 of 5 horses. Mean surgery time was 31.34 ± 7.41 minutes. No intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications were encountered. No short-term or long-term complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cryptorchidectomy can be safely performed with a vessel sealing-device in dorsal recumbent horses. This method was effective and did not result in any complication in our case series.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".