Retrospective evaluation on the outcome of perineal herniorrhaphy augmented with porcine small intestinal submucosa in dogs and cats.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate post-operative outcome in dogs and cats undergoing perineal herniorrhaphy using porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS) alone and with internal obturator muscle transposition augmented with PSIS (IOMT + PSIS). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed and information collected on signalment, pre-operative signs, operative details, and hospitalization. Data on post-operative outcome were obtained from medical records and survey. Eleven dogs and 3 cats had 18 perineal hernias repaired with IOMT + PSIS and 3 using PSIS alone. Surgical site infection developed following IOMT + PSIS in 1/21 hernias (5.6%). Short- and long-term postoperative complications occurred in 9/14 animals and 3/14 animals, respectively. Among the 21 perineal hernias, 3 recurred, 2 of which were repaired with IOMT + PSIS and 1 with PSIS alone. Use of PSIS alone or augmenting IOMT was acceptable for perineal herniorrhaphy and should be considered by surgeons if there are concerns about internal obturator muscle integrity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".