MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome evaluation of ureteral stenting versus subcutaneous ureteral bypass for feline ureteral obstruction

2025· article· W7165394687 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Whitfield

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)ComplicationStentUreterOcclusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 10% of cats presenting with acute kidney injury harbour a ureteral obstruction that demands prompt surgical decompression, yet the choice between ureteral stenting and subcutaneous ureteral bypass (SUB) remains debated. This retrospective research compared short- and long-term outcomes of 64 cats treated for ureteral obstruction at the Toronto Metropolitan University of Veterinary Medicine teaching hospital between January 2020 and June 2024. Thirty-one cats received double-pigtail ureteral stents (Stent group), while 33 underwent SUB device placement (SUB group). Signalment, pre-operative serum creatinine, obstruction aetiology, surgical duration, peri-operative mortality, and complication rates at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months were recorded and analysed. Calcium oxalate uroliths accounted for the majority of obstructions in both groups (59.4% Stent, 57.6% SUB). Median pre-operative creatinine was comparable (Stent 487 µmol/L vs SUB 512 µmol/L; p = 0.41). Surgical time was shorter for stent placement (median 68 min) than for SUB implantation (median 94 min; p = 0.003). Peri-operative mortality within 14 days did not differ between groups (Stent 6.5% vs SUB 6.1%; p = 0.94). At 30 days, the Stent group displayed a higher rate of dysuria or pollakiuria (31.2% vs 6.3%; p = 0.012) and stent migration occurred in 14.7% of stented cats. Re-obstruction within 12 months was more frequent in the Stent group (23.4%) than the SUB group (8.6%; p = 0.038). Conversely, subcutaneous port occlusion occurred in 15.4% of SUB cats, requiring port flush under sedation. Median serum creatinine at 6 months decreased to 194 µmol/L in the Stent group and 201 µmol/L in the SUB group (p = 0.73). One-year survival was 74.2% for stented cats and 78.8% for SUB cats (p = 0.67). These findings suggest that both techniques offer similar survival rates and renal function recovery, but their complication profiles differ substantially. Ureteral stents are faster to place and less expensive, yet carry higher risks of lower urinary tract signs and re-obstruction. SUB devices demand ongoing port maintenance but appear to provide more durable ureteral patency. Clinicians should weigh obstruction location, ureteral diameter, owner compliance with follow-up, and surgeon experience when selecting the appropriate intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal HusbandrySame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207