Placement of an artificial urethral sphincter in 8 male dogs with urethral diverticulum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urethral diverticulum (UD) is a poorly defined anomaly consisting of an outpouching of the urethra. Management without surgical resection is not previously reported in dogs. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Report the outcome of male dogs presented for urinary incontinence with UD treated with an artificial urethral sphincter (AUS). ANIMALS: Eight client-owned dogs with UD treated with an AUS. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study. Medical records from male dogs with urinary incontinence were reviewed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: diagnosis of a UD by retrograde cystourethrography, cystoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography or contrast computed tomodensitometry (CT) or a combination of these modalities, AUS placement, and at least 1 follow-up. Urinary continence score (UCS) was attributed retrospectively. RESULTS: Median UCS at presentation was 1/5. A contrast cystourethrogram was diagnostic in 8/8 dogs. All diverticula were saccular, and 7/8 were within the prostatic urethra and 1/8 extended up to the membranous urethra. A congenital origin was suspected in 7 dogs and acquired in 1. Concurrent anomalies included renal dysplasia or chronic pyelonephritis (n = 4), bilateral cryptorchidism (n = 3), and pelvic urinary bladder (n = 3). All dogs were poorly/moderately responsive to phenylpropanolamine. Artificial urethral sphincter placement resulted in improvement in continence in all dogs with a median UCS of 4/5 (5/5 in 2/8 dogs, 4/5 in 5/8 dogs, 3/5 in 1/8 dogs). CONCLUSION: Urethral diverticulum should be considered in male dogs with persistent urinary incontinence not responding to medical management. Artificial urethral sphincter placement is an effective therapeutic option that improved continence scores in all dogs.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".