A systematic review of complications related to laparoscopic and laparoscopic‐assisted procedures in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and report the quality of the scientific literature reporting complications associated with laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted procedures in client-owned or healthy research dogs and to report and illustrate laparoscopic complications related to individual organ systems. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. ANIMALS: Client-owned or healthy research dogs. METHODS: A literature review was performed by using PubMed and CAB abstracts for English-language studies providing descriptions of complications related to laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted procedures in dogs. Study selection used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality assessment was performed by using a MINORS (Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies) scoring system and a grading scale of level of evidence. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: In total, 741 manuscripts were identified, with 64 manuscripts eligible for data extraction and quality assessment. The most represented organ system was the female genital tract, represented by 22 (34.4%) studies. The most commonly reported intraoperative and postoperative complications were related to abdominal entry and portal incisions, respectively. In 53 of 54 non-randomized studies, high risk of bias was found. Forty-eight (75%) studies provided level III or IV evidence. CONCLUSION: This report provides an updated review of complications related to laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted procedures in dogs, classified by organ system. The overall quality of evidence was low, limiting direct comparison of complication rates between studies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There is a need for implementation of standardized criteria for defining complications, study time frames and greater numbers of high quality prospective randomized trials in veterinary laparoscopy to permit comparison of complication and conversion rates between published studies and across organ systems.
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 | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".