• 1.

    Dhein CR, Person MW. Prepubic (suprapubic) catheterisation of eight dogs with lower urinary tract disorders. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1989;25:272276.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Williams JM, White RAS. Tube cystostomy in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1992;32:598602.

  • 3.

    Hayashi K, Hardie RJ. Use of cystostomy tubes in small animals. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2003;25:928934.

  • 4.

    Smith JD, Stone EA, Gilson SD. Placement of a permanent cystostomy catheter to relieve urine outflow obstruction in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995;206:496499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Stiffler KS, McCrackin Stevenson MA, Cornell KK, et al. Clinical use of low-profile cystostomy tubes in four dogs and a cat. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:325329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Salinardi BJ, Marks SL, Davidson JR, et al. The use of a lowprofile cystostomy tube to relieve urethral obstruction in a dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:403405.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Dhein CR, Person MW, Leathers CW, et al. Prepubic (suprapubic) catheterisation of the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1989;25:261271.

  • 8.

    Barsanti JA, Blue J, Edmunds J. Urinary tract infection due to indwelling bladder catheters in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985;187:384388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Bruschini H, Tanagho EA. Cystostomy drainage: its efficacy in preventing residual urine and infection. J Urol 1977;118:391.

  • 10.

    Nicolle LE. Catheter-related urinary tract infection. Drugs Aging 2005;22:627639.

Advertisement

Outcome of and complications associated with tube cystostomy in dogs and cats: 76 cases (1995–2006)

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Herts AL9 7TA, England.
  • | 2 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Herts AL9 7TA, England.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Herts AL9 7TA, England.
  • | 4 Queen's Veterinary School Hospital, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0ES, England.
  • | 5 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Herts AL9 7TA, England.

Abstract

Objective—To determine indications for cystostomy tube use in dogs and cats, complications associated with their use, and outcome of dogs and cats in which cystostomy tubes had been inserted.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—37 dogs and 39 cats.

Procedures—Information was obtained from medical records.Long-term follow-up information was obtained by use of a client questionnaire.

Results—Indications for cystostomy tube placement were bladder dysfunction, urinary tract rupture, obstructive urinary tract neoplasia, urinary diversion following urogenital surgery, obstructive urolithiasis, and feline lower urinary tract disease.Median time tubes were in place was 11 days, but duration of tube use was significantly longer for animals with blad-der dysfunction than for animals with urinary tract trauma, urinary diversion, or urinary tract obstruction.Thirty-seven (49%) animals had tube complications.Development of complica tions was not significantly associated with species, age, body weight, duration of tube use, or tube type, except that animals were significantly more likely to develop complications following long-rather than short-term use.In 42 animals, the underlying condition resolved and the tube was removed; 22 animals died or were euthanatized with the tube in place.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that cystostomy tubes may be used for animals with various conditions related to problems with urine outflow.Nearly half the animals in the study developed complications related to the cystostomy tube, suggesting that potential complications should be discussed with owners prior to tube placement. However, most complications were easily resolved.

Contributor Notes

Mr. Ogden's present address is Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Mr. Hamilton's present address is Wey Referral, 125–129 Chertsey Rd, Woking, Surrey GU21 5BP, England.

The authors thank Stephen Baines and David Brodbelt for assistance with statistical analyses.

Address correspondence to Ms. Beck.