Treatment and outcomes of five dogs with intrathoracic migration of porcupine quills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the perioperative findings and outcomes in dogs that underwent exploratory thoracotomy following porcupine quill migration and report (1) the use of traction alone for the removal of superficial quills in the pulmonary parenchyma, and (2) the use of exploratory pericardiotomy for the incidental identification of cardiac quills. ANIMALS: Five client-owned dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Short case series. METHODS: Medical records of dogs with pneumothorax or pericardial effusion secondary to porcupine quill migration from January 2019 to January 2022 were reviewed. Advanced imaging and a median sternotomy were performed in each dog. Demographics, preoperative findings, surgical treatment, and outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Pulmonary quills were treated with gentle traction or lung lobectomy. The intraoperative palpation or appearance of the pericardium prompted pericardiotomy in three dogs, exposing epicardial and intravascular quills. No evidence of these quills was detected on preoperative advanced imaging or on gross appearance of the pericardium. Quills were removed with a combination of gentle traction, purse-string sutures, and mattress sutures. Pneumothorax and pericardial effusion resolved postoperatively in all dogs. All dogs survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: Traction allowed removal of quills that were superficially attached to the pulmonary parenchyma without the need for subsequent lobectomy. Epicardial and myocardial quills were detected following pericardiotomy in three dogs despite the absence of quills grossly penetrating the pericardium. Preoperative imaging did not allow consistent detection of quills.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".