Urethropexy for canine urethral prolapse treatment: a retrospective study of 20 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE HISTORY AND CLINICAL FINDINGS: Medical record databases of a veterinary referral hospital in Montréal, Canada, were scrutinised to identify dogs that underwent urethropexy for urethral prolapse between June 2016 and March 2025.A total of 20 dogs were included in the study; brachycephalic breeds (15/20; 75%) and intact males (16/20; 80%) predominated. The median age at presentation was 10 (min 6, max 72) months, and the median body weight was 22.2 (min 2.5, max 29.6) kg. Two dogs had a urinary catheter, placed following spinal surgery, when urethral prolapse occurred.In addition to urethral prolapse, dogs presented with bleeding from the penis (10/20; 50%), haematuria (6/20; 30%), stranguria or periuria (2/20; 10%), and balanoposthitis (1/20; 5%). TREATMENT AND OUTCOME: Urethropexy was performed in all 20 dogs. All but four dogs had concurrent surgical procedures: castration (n = 14), rhinoplasty, palatoplasty, and/or laryngeal sacculectomy (n = 6), or caudectomy (n = 1). Surgical duration for dogs that received urethropexy alone was 5-18 minutes and time to discharge was 1-2 days.Minor complications (transient haemorrhage, stranguria/dysuria, and/or swelling of the penile tip) were identified in 11/20 dogs (55%), all of which resolved within 2 weeks. Long-term follow-up data were obtained by a telephone interview with each owner, a median of 694.5 (min 19, max 2,827) days after surgery. Two dogs (10%) had recurrence of the urethral prolapse (considered a major complication) 2 days and 8 months after surgery. Only one of the two recurrences required surgical intervention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Urethropexy alone may be a viable surgical option for treating urethral prolapse at initial presentation.
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".