• 1.

    Gill MS, Sod GA. Buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty for the reversal of a perineal urethrostomy in a goat wether. Vet Surg 2004;33:33385.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Palmer JL, Dykes NL, Love K, et al. Contrast radiography of the lower urinary tract in the management of obstructive urolithiasis in small ruminants and swine. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1998;39:175180.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Bostedt D, Dedie K. Harnwege. In: Bostedt D, Dedie K, eds. Schafund Ziegenkrankheiten. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Ulmer, 1996;371380.

  • 4.

    Haven ML, Bowmann KF, Engelbert TA, et al. Surgical management of urolithiasis in small ruminants. Cornell Vet 1993;83:4755.

  • 5.

    Pearce SG, Dearo AC, Howard BE, et al. Management of obstructive urolithiasis and concurrent urethral rupture in a goat. Aust Vet J 2003;81:268270.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Rakestraw PC, Fubini SL, Gilbert RO, et al. Tube cystotomy for the treatment of obstructive urolithiasis in small ruminants. Vet Surg 1995;24:498505.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Fortier LA, Gregg AJ, Erb HN, et al. Caprine obstructive urolithiasis: requirement for 2nd surgical intervention and mortality after percutaneous tube cystotomy, surgical tube cystotomy or urinary bladder marsupialization. Vet Surg 2004;33:661667.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Streeter RN, Washburn KE, McCauley CT. Percutaneous tube cystotomy and vesicular irrigation for treatment of obstructive urolithiasis in a goat. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:546549.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Ewoldt JM, Anderson DE, Miesner MD, et al. Short- and long-term outcome and factors predicting survival after surgical tube cystotomy for treatment of obstructive urolithiasis in small ruminants. Vet Surg 2006;35:417422.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Halland SK, House JK, George LW. Urethroscopy and laser lithotripsy for the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive urolithiasis in goats and pot-bellied pigs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:18311834.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Iselin U, Lischer Ch, Braun U, et al. Cystotomy with and without temporary prepubic Foley catheter implantation for treatment of obstructive urolithiasis in small ruminants; a retrospective study. Vet Med Austria 2001;88:3945.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Dühlmeier R, Zibell G, vonAltrock A, et al. Urolithiasis in small ruminants—methods of treatment and recovery. Tierarztl Prax G 2007;35:175182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Hendrickson DA. History and instrumentation of laparoscopic surgery. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2000;16:233249.

  • 14.

    Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Kerbl K. Laparoscopic general surgery. New Engl J Med 1994;330:409419.

  • 15.

    Boure L. General principles of laparoscopy. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2005;21:227249.

  • 16.

    Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 2001;15:275280.

  • 17.

    Mayol J, Garcia-Aguilar J, Ortiz-Oshiro E, et al. Risks of the minimal access approach for laparoscopic surgery: multivariate analysis of morbidity related to umbilical trocar insertion. World J Surg 1997;21:529533.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Crist DW, Gadacz TR. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Clin North Am 1993;73:265289.

  • 19.

    Shettko DL. Complications in laparoscopic surgery. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2000;16:377383.

  • 20.

    Röcken M, Stehle C, Mosel G, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted cystotomy for urolith removal in geldings. Vet Surg 2006;35:35397.

  • 21.

    Babkine M, Desrochers A. Laparoscopic surgery in adult cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2005;21:251279.

  • 22.

    Bertone AL. The decision process. Standing surgery versus general anesthesia and recumbency. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1991;7:7488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Laparoscopic-assisted implantation of a urinary catheter in male sheep

View More View Less
  • 1 Clinic for Ruminants, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 2 Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Basic Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 3 Clinic for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care, Department of Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 4 Clinic for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Intensive Care, Department of Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 5 Clinic for Ruminants, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 6 Clinic for Ruminants, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 7 Clinic for Surgery, Department of Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate a laparoscopic technique for implantation of a urinary catheter in the right paramedian area in male sheep and to determine feasibility, benefits, and risks for this technique.

Design—Evaluation study.

Animals—6 healthy male sheep (mean ± SD body weight, 42.16 ± 11.95 kg [92.75 ± 26.29 lb]).

Procedures—Each sheep was anesthetized and positioned in dorsal recumbency. A 10-mm laparoscope was inserted in the right paramedian area between the xiphoid and preputial orifice. After creation of capnoperitoneum, grasping forceps were inserted in the left paramedian area at the level of the teats and used to immobilize the urinary bladder. A pigtail balloon catheter was implanted transcutaneously in the right paramedian area between the preputial orifice and teats and directed into the urinary bladder by use of laparoscopic guidance. The catheter was removed 10 days after implantation. Fourteen days after initial surgery, a second laparoscopy was performed to evaluate pathologic changes.

Results—Inadvertent insertion of the first trocar into the rumen of 1 sheep was the only intraoperative complication encountered. Laparoscopic-assisted implantation of the urinary catheter was successfully performed in all sheep. No postoperative complications were detected.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Laparoscopic-assisted implantation of a urinary catheter in the right paramedian area was successfully performed and may be a feasible method for use in sheep. This method can be considered as an alternative to tube cystotomy performed by laparotomy.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate a laparoscopic technique for implantation of a urinary catheter in the right paramedian area in male sheep and to determine feasibility, benefits, and risks for this technique.

Design—Evaluation study.

Animals—6 healthy male sheep (mean ± SD body weight, 42.16 ± 11.95 kg [92.75 ± 26.29 lb]).

Procedures—Each sheep was anesthetized and positioned in dorsal recumbency. A 10-mm laparoscope was inserted in the right paramedian area between the xiphoid and preputial orifice. After creation of capnoperitoneum, grasping forceps were inserted in the left paramedian area at the level of the teats and used to immobilize the urinary bladder. A pigtail balloon catheter was implanted transcutaneously in the right paramedian area between the preputial orifice and teats and directed into the urinary bladder by use of laparoscopic guidance. The catheter was removed 10 days after implantation. Fourteen days after initial surgery, a second laparoscopy was performed to evaluate pathologic changes.

Results—Inadvertent insertion of the first trocar into the rumen of 1 sheep was the only intraoperative complication encountered. Laparoscopic-assisted implantation of the urinary catheter was successfully performed in all sheep. No postoperative complications were detected.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Laparoscopic-assisted implantation of a urinary catheter in the right paramedian area was successfully performed and may be a feasible method for use in sheep. This method can be considered as an alternative to tube cystotomy performed by laparotomy.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Schöffmann's present address is Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, Scotland.

Supported by the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (start-up project—Profillinie 1).

The authors thank Dr. Christian Gelfert for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Address correspondence to Dr. Franz.