Outcomes associated with vaginectomy and vulvovaginectomy in 21 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of dogs with lesions of the genitourinary tract treated by vaginectomy or vulvovaginectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective study. ANIMALS: Female dogs that underwent vulvovaginectomy, complete vaginectomy, or subtotal vaginectomy from 2003 to 2018 with complete medical records and a minimum of 60 days follow-up. METHODS: Data collected from medical records included preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data, such as the occurrence of urinary incontinence (UIC), disease recurrence, and death/euthanasia. RESULTS: This study included 21 dogs. Four dogs had vulvovaginectomy, six had complete vaginectomy, and 11 had a subtotal vaginectomy performed. The mean age at surgery was 9.2 years (SD, 3.3). Thirteen dogs were intact at presentation. Smooth muscle tumors were diagnosed most commonly (10 leiomyomata, three leiomyosarcomas, two leiomyofibromas). The median duration of follow-up was 520 days (range, 71-1955). Major complications requiring revision surgery were recorded in two dogs. Postoperative UIC occurred in six of 21 dogs, resolving spontaneously within 60 days in three dogs. Dogs with malignant tumors (n = 6) survived at least 71 days (median, 626; 95% CI, 71-1245), and recurrence of disease occurred in two dogs. In dogs with benign tumors (n = 15), the median survival time was not reached. These dogs survived at least 104 days and had no recurrence of the disease. CONCLUSION: Vaginectomy and vulvovaginectomy resulted in prolonged survival and low rates of major complications and UIC. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence to recommend that the risks of this procedure and expectations should be discussed with clients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".