Comparison of percutaneous cystolithotomy and open cystotomy for removal of urethral and bladder uroliths in dogs: Retrospective study of 81 cases (2014-2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare percutaneous cystolithotomy (PCCL) and open cystotomy (OC) for removal of bladder and urethral uroliths. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs and cats that underwent PCCL (n = 41) or OC (n = 40) between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2018 at a referral center. METHODS: Medical records of dogs and cats that underwent a PCCL or an OC were reviewed. History, signalment, physical examination, diagnostic tests, length of the procedure and anesthesia, complications, and duration of hospitalization were recorded. RESULTS: A total 17 cats (PCCL = 10; OC = 7) and 64 dogs (PCCL = 31; OC = 33) were included. There was no significant difference, regardless of species, in the mean surgical time (45 min [24-160 min] and 48.5 min [15-122 min] with P = .54 in dogs, P = .65 in cats) nor mean duration of anesthesia (90 min [50-120 min] and 98 min [54-223 min] with P = .87 in dogs, P = .08 in cats) in the PCCL and OC groups respectively. Number of uroliths did not affect duration of surgery in either group. Complete urolith removal was achieved in 98% of dogs and cats in both groups. The median hospitalization time was significantly shorter in the PCCL group for dogs (11.3 hours [range 4 to 51.3] in the PCCL vs 56.6 hours [range 7.3 to 96] in the OC group; P < .001) but did not differ for cats (24.5 hours [range 8.3 to 30] in the PCCL vs 56.6 hours [range 10.1 to 193.2] in the OC group; P = .08). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bladder urolith removal by PCCL procedure is no longer than OC. Further studies are needed to compare the pain related to procedure between PCCL and OC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".