• 1. Audell L, Jonsson L, Lannek B. Congenital porta-caval shunts in the dog; a description of three cases. Zentralbl Veterinarmed A 1974; 21: 797805.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Mai W, Weisse C. Contrast-enhanced portal magnetic resonance angiography in dogs with suspected congenital portal vascular anomalies. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 284288.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. d'Anjou MA, Penninck D, Cornejo L, et al. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of portosystemic shunting in dogs and cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2004; 45: 424437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Bertolini G, Rolla EC, Zotti A, et al. Three-dimensional multislice helical computed tomography techniques for canine extra-hepatic portosystemic shunt assessment. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006; 47: 439443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Morandi F, Cole RC, Tobias KM, et al. Use of 99mTCO4 transsplenic portal scintigraphy for diagnosis of portosystemic shunts in 28 dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005; 46: 153161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Gómez-Ochoa P, Llabrés-Díaz F, Ruiz S, et al. Use of transsplenic injection of agitated saline and heparinized blood for the ultrasonographic diagnosis of macroscopic portosystemic shunts in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 103106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Daniel GB, Bright R, Ollis P, et al. Per rectal portal scintigraphy using 99mtechnetium pertechnetate to diagnose portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 1991; 5: 2327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Sura PA, Tobias KM, Morandi F, et al. Comparison of 99mTcO4 trans-splenic portal scintigraphy with per-rectal portal scintigraphy for diagnosis of portosystemic shunts in dogs. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 654660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Nelson NC, Nelson LL. Anatomy of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs as determined by computed tomography angiography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 498506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. White RN, Parry AT. Morphology of congenital portosystemic shunts emanating from the left gastric vein in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 2013; 54: 459467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Hunt GB, Kummeling A, Tisdall PL, et al. Outcomes of cellophane banding for congenital portosystemic shunts in 106 dogs and 5 cats. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 2531.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Hogan DF, Benitez ME, Parnell NK, et al. Intravascular occlusion for the correction of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 10481054.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Greenhalgh SN, Dunning MD, McKinley TJ, et al. Comparison of survival after surgical or medical treatment in dogs with a congenital portosystemic shunt. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236: 12151220.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Falls EL, Milovancev M, Hunt GB, et al. Long-term outcome after surgical ameroid ring constrictor placement for treatment of single extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 951957.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Tobias KM. Determination of inheritance of single congenital portosystemic shunts in Yorkshire Terriers. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003; 39: 385389.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. O'Leary CA, Parslow A, Malik R, et al. The inheritance of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts and elevated bile acid concentrations in Maltese dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2014; 55: 1421.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Payne JT, Martin RA, Constantinescu GM. The anatomy and embryology of portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats. Semin Vet Med Surg (Small Anim) 1990; 5: 7682.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Lamb CR, White RN. Morphology of congenital intrahepatic portacaval shunts in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1998; 142: 5560.

  • 19. Winkler JT, Bohling MW, Tillson DM, et al. Portosystemic shunts: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of 64 cases (1993–2001). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003; 39: 169185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Tobias KM, Rohrbach BW. Association of breed with the diagnosis of congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: 2,400 cases (1980–2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 223: 16361639.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Mehl ML, Kyles AE, Hardie EM, et al. Evaluation of ameroid ring constrictors for treatment for single extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs: 168 cases (1995–2001). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 226: 20202030.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Van den Bossche L, van Steenbeek FG, Favier RP, et al. Distribution of extrahepatic congenital portosystemic shunt morphology in predisposed dog breeds. BMC Vet Res 2012; 8: 112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Markowitz J, Rappaport A, Scott AC. The function of the hepatic artery in the dog. Am J Dig Dis 1949; 16: 344348.

  • 24. Lamb CR, Forster-van Hijfte MA, White RN, et al. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of congenital portosystemic shunt in 14 cats. J Small Anim Pract 1996; 37: 205209.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Hurn SD, Edwards GA. Perioperative outcomes after three different single extrahepatic portosystemic shunt attenuation techniques in dogs: partial ligation, complete ligation and ameroid constrictor placement. Aust Vet J 2003; 81: 666670.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Broome CJ, Walsh VP, Braddock JA. Congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs and cats. N Z Vet J 2004; 52: 154162.

  • 27. Berent AC, Tobias KM. Portosystemic vascular anomalies. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2009; 39: 513541.

  • 28. Marretta SM, Pask AJ, Greene RW, et al. Urinary calculi associated with portosystemic shunts in six dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1981; 178: 133137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Johnson CA, Armstrong PJ, Hauptman JG. Congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: 46 cases (1979–1986). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987; 191: 14781483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Frankel D, Seim H, MacPhail C, et al. Evaluation of cellophane banding with and without intraoperative attenuation for treatment of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 228: 13551360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Windsor RC, Olby NJ. Congenital portosystemic shunts in five mature dogs with neurological signs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2007; 43: 322331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Berent AC, Tobias KM. Hepatic vascular anomalies. In: Tobias KM, Spencer AJ, eds. Veterinary surgery: small animal. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2012; 16241658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Feeney DA, Weichselbaum RC, Jessen CR, et al. Imaging canine urocystoliths—detection and prediction of mineral content. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 5972.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Bartges JW, Osborne CA, Lulich JP, et al. Canine urate urolithiasis. Etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 161191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 1998; 159: 673675.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Watson PJ, Herrtage ME. Medical management of congenital portosystemic shunts in 27 dogs—a retrospective study. J Small Anim Pract 1998; 39: 6268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37. Hunt GB. Effect of breed on anatomy of portosystemic shunts resulting from congenital diseases in dogs and cats: a review of 242 cases. Aust Vet J 2004; 82: 746749.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38. Albasan H, Lulich JP, Osborne CA, et al. Evaluation of the association between sex and risk of forming urate uroliths in Dalmatians. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227: 565569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39. Li WM, Chou YH, Li CC, et al. Local factors compared with systemic factors in the formation of bladder uric acid stones. Urol Int 2009; 82: 4852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40. Chou YH, Li WM, Li CC, et al. Clinical study of uric acid urolithiasis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2007; 23: 298301.

  • 41. Costa-Bauzá A, Ramis M, Montesinos V, et al. Type of renal calculi: variation with age and sex. World J Urol 2007; 25: 415421.

  • 42. Appel SL, Houston DM, Moore AEP, et al. Feline urate urolithiasis. Can Vet J 2010; 51: 493496.

  • 43. Lulich JP, Osborne CA, Thumchai R, et al. Epidemiology of canine calcium oxalate uroliths: identifying risk factors. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 113122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44. Lee YH, Huang WC, Chiang H, et al. Determinant role of testosterone in the pathogenesis of urolithiasis in rats. J Urol 1992; 147: 11341138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45. Yoshioka I, Tsujihata M, Momohara C, et al. Effect of sex hormones on crystal formation in a stone-forming rat model. Urology 2010; 75: 907913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46. Yagisawa T, Ito F, Osaka Y, et al. The influence of sex hormones on renal osteopontin expression and urinary constituents in experimental urolithiasis. J Urol 2001; 166: 10781082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47. Schramek P, Heidenreich A, Engelmann UH. Sex-dependent urolithiasis in the portacaval shunt rat. Part I. Urol Int 1993; 50: 7781.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48. Heidenreich A, Engelmann U. Sex-dependent urolithiasis in the portacaval shunt rat. 2. Hormones and stone formation. Urol Int 1993; 51: 198203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49. Heller HJ, Sakhaee K, Moe OW, et al. Etiological role of estrogen status in renal stone formation. J Urol 2002; 168: 19231927.

  • 50. Verzola D, Villaggio B, Procopio V, et al. Androgen-mediated apoptosis of kidney tubule cells: role of c-Jun amino terminal kinase. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009; 387: 531536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51. Verzola D, Gandolfo MT, Salvatore F, et al. Testosterone promotes apoptotic damage in human renal tubular cells. Kidney Int 2004; 65: 12521261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52. Khan SR. Renal tubular damage/dysfunction: key to the formation of kidney stones. Urol Res 2006; 34: 8691.

  • 53. Kruger JM, Osborne CA. Etiopathogenesis of uric acid and ammonium urate uroliths in non-Dalmatian dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1986; 16: 87126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54. Shekarriz B, Stoller ML. Uric acid nephrolithiasis: current concepts and controversies. J Urol 2002; 168: 13071314.

  • 55. Johnson KY, Lulich JP, Osborne CA. Evaluation of the reproducibility and accuracy of pH-determining devices used to measure urine pH in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007; 230: 364369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Risk factors for urolithiasis in dogs with congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts: 95 cases (1999–2013)

View More View Less
  • 1 Veterinary Teaching Hospital, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61821.
  • | 2 Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61821.
  • | 3 College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61821.
  • | 4 Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61821.

Abstract

Objective—To identify risk factors for urolithiasis in dogs with congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (EHPSSs) and to determine whether portoazygos shunts were associated with increased risk of urolithiasis at the initial evaluation for EHPSS.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—Dogs (n = 95) with EHPSSs confirmed via CT angiography or surgery.

Procedures—Medical records from 1999 to 2013 were reviewed. Variables of interest included signalment, previous medical management, and results of urinalysis, urolith analyses, and diagnostic imaging. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses for assessment of risk factors for urolithiasis at the time of initial EHPSS evaluation were performed.

Results—The dogs’ median age was 0.9 years (range, 0.2 to 12.6 years). Among the 95 dogs, 27 (28.4%) and 68 (71.6%) had portoazygos and portocaval shunts, respectively. Urinalysis was performed for 79 (83.2%) dogs, 29 (36.7%) of which had crystalluria (mainly ammonium urate and struvite crystals). Uroliths were present in 34 of 95 (35.8%) dogs; 16 of 17 uroliths analyzed were composed of ammonium urate. Portoazygos shunts were not associated with significantly increased odds of urolithiasis at the time of the initial evaluation for EHPSS. However, the odds of urolithiasis was significantly increased for male dogs, older dogs, and dogs that received previous medical treatment.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In dogs with EHPSS, shunt morphology was not associated with increased odds of urolithiasis at the initial evaluation. Male dogs, older dogs, and dogs having received medical management for EHPSS prior to initial evaluation should be considered at increased risk for development of urolithiasis.

Abstract

Objective—To identify risk factors for urolithiasis in dogs with congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (EHPSSs) and to determine whether portoazygos shunts were associated with increased risk of urolithiasis at the initial evaluation for EHPSS.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—Dogs (n = 95) with EHPSSs confirmed via CT angiography or surgery.

Procedures—Medical records from 1999 to 2013 were reviewed. Variables of interest included signalment, previous medical management, and results of urinalysis, urolith analyses, and diagnostic imaging. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses for assessment of risk factors for urolithiasis at the time of initial EHPSS evaluation were performed.

Results—The dogs’ median age was 0.9 years (range, 0.2 to 12.6 years). Among the 95 dogs, 27 (28.4%) and 68 (71.6%) had portoazygos and portocaval shunts, respectively. Urinalysis was performed for 79 (83.2%) dogs, 29 (36.7%) of which had crystalluria (mainly ammonium urate and struvite crystals). Uroliths were present in 34 of 95 (35.8%) dogs; 16 of 17 uroliths analyzed were composed of ammonium urate. Portoazygos shunts were not associated with significantly increased odds of urolithiasis at the time of the initial evaluation for EHPSS. However, the odds of urolithiasis was significantly increased for male dogs, older dogs, and dogs that received previous medical treatment.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In dogs with EHPSS, shunt morphology was not associated with increased odds of urolithiasis at the initial evaluation. Male dogs, older dogs, and dogs having received medical management for EHPSS prior to initial evaluation should be considered at increased risk for development of urolithiasis.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Caporali's present address is VCA Berwyn Animal Hospital, 2845 Harlem Ave, Berwyn, IL 60402.

No funding or support was received for this study.

Address correspondence to Dr. Phillips (philli@illinois.edu).