Accessory lung lobectomy in dogs: 11 cases (2009‐2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe accessory lung lobectomy, via right or left intercostal thoracotomy, intraoperative and postoperative complications and outcome in a small population of dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 11 dogs that underwent accessory lung lobectomy at three veterinary institutions between 2009 and 2023 were reviewed. Signalment, history, physical examination, diagnostics, duration of hospitalisation, surgical approach, type of lobectomy, concurrent procedures, intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of indwelling thoracic drain and short-term outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Dogs underwent accessory lung lobectomy either via right (n = 9) or left (n = 2) intercostal thoracotomy. Partial (n = 6) or total lobectomy (n = 5) with stapler devices (n = 10) or surgical ligation (n = 1) was performed. Histopathology was performed in ten of 11 dogs and was consistent with pneumonia due to an infectious process or a migrating vegetable foreign body (n = 5), pulmonary carcinoma (n = 2), severe chronic neutrophilic and macrophagic pleuropneumonia (n = 1), pulmonary bullae (n = 1) or blastomycosis infection (n = 1). Iatrogenic trauma to the left caudal lung lobe occurred in one dog via left intercostal thoracotomy. The mean duration of indwelling thoracic drain was 2.7 days (range 1 to 4). Complications occurred postoperatively in six dogs. In five of six cases, short-term postoperative complications were classified as minor and included wound infection (n = 1), cough (n = 1), dyspnoea (n = 1), adverse reaction to medication (n = 1) and inappetence (n = 1). One case developed a major complication, pneumothorax with dehiscence of the lobectomy site, and revision surgery was required. All dogs survived hospital discharge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Accessory lung lobectomy is uncommon and can be performed either via left- or via right-sided intercostal thoracotomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".