• 1. Haven ML, Wichtel JJ, Bristol DG, et al. Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative complications after rumenotomy in cattle. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 200: 13321335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Dehghani SN, Ghadrdani AM. Bovine rumenotomy: comparison of four surgical techniques. Can Vet J 1995; 36: 693697.

  • 3. Naismith RS. A review of fifty cases of rumenotomy. Vet Rec 1950; 62: 581583.

  • 4. Boyd WJ. Rumenotomy for the removal of placental membranes. Can J Comp Med Vet Sci 1949; 13: 124125.

  • 5. Ducharme NG. Surgery of the bovine forestomach compartments. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1990; 6: 371397.

  • 6. Haas J. Esophageal foreign body in a 2-day-old calf. Can Vet J 2010; 51: 406408.

  • 7. Ismail ZB, Al-Majali A, Al-Qudah K. Clinical and surgical findings and outcome following rumenotomy in adult dairy cattle affected with recurrent rumen tympany associated with non-metallic foreign bodies. Am J Anim Vet Sci 2007; 2: 6671.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Niehaus AJ. Rumenotomy. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2008; 24: 341347.

  • 9. Patel RM, Patel PB, Patel JB. Reticular foreign body syndrome in Mehsana buffaloes. Intas Polivet 2012; 13: 4243.

  • 10. Rehage J, Kaske M, Stockhofe-Zurwieden N, et al. Evaluation of the pathogenesis of vagus indigestion in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995; 207: 16071611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Young FW. Rumenotomy in traumatic gastritis. M S C Vet 1947–1948; 8:6567.

  • 12. Zavitz S, Zavitz V. Rumenotomy and intestinal anastomosis in a heifer. Can Vet J 1960; 1: 115118.

  • 13. Balikci E, Günay C. Comparison of some clinical, hematological, biochemical, and electrocardiography findings before and after ruminatomy in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis. Firat Universitesi Saglik Bilimleri Veteriner Derg 2004; 18: 1319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Chigerwe M, Tyler JW, Dawes ME, et al. Enteral feeding of 3 mature cows by rumenostomy. J Vet Intern Med 2005; 19: 779781.

  • 15. Kenney DG, Weldon AD, Rebhun WC. Oropharyngeal abscessation in two cows secondary to administration of an oral calcium preparation. Cornell Vet 1993; 83: 6165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Braun U, Götz M, Marmier O. Ultrasonographic findings in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis. Vet Rec 1993; 133: 416422.

  • 17. Herzog K, Kaske M, Bischoff C, et al. Post surgical development of inflammatory adhesions and reticular function in cows suffering from traumatic reticuloperitonitis. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2004; 111: 5762.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. William BJ, Balachandran S, Kannan C. Post-operative complications of rumenotomy. Indian Vet J 1990; 67: 11611162.

  • 19. Cho J-H, Kim M-C, Jeong S-M, et al. Operation of abomasal displacement and foreign body removal in rumen through the right flank celiotomy. J Vet Clin 2013; 30: 8085.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Nikam P, Tank P, Vadalia J, et al. Clinical and surgical findings in cows showing recurrent rumen tympany. Indian J Vet Surg 2012; 33: 124127.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Kostyra J. Treatment of perforating wounds of the rumen in sheep by means of rumenotomy [in Polish]. Pol Arch Weter 1972; 15: 7993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Visser IJ, van den Hoven R, Vos JH, et al. Pieris japonica pieris poisoning in 2 goats [in Dutch]. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 1988; 113: 185189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Anderson R, Bath GF, Thompson PN, et al. Oesophageal obstruction in Dorper ewes caused by impaction of a pelleted ration. J S Afr Vet Assoc 2010; 81: 118120.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Michael SJ, McKinley RE. Rumenotomy simplified. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1954; 124: 2627.

  • 25. Chernenko IS, Gor'kov MP. Rumenotomy with the use of a new fixation instrument [in Russian]. Veterinariia 1966; 43: 5759.

  • 26. Rebhun W, Fubini S, Miller T, et al. Vagus indigestion in cattle: clinical features, causes, treatments, and long-term follow-up of 112 cases. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1988; 10: 387392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Rager KD, George LW, House JK, et al. Evaluation of rumen transfaunation after surgical correction of left-sided displacement of the abomasum in cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 225: 915920.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Brake DW, Titgemeyer EC, Jones ML, et al. Effect of nitrogen supplementation on urea kinetics and microbial use of recycled urea in steers consuming corn-based diets. J Anim Sci 2010; 88: 27292740.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Mullins CR, Grigsby KN, Anderson DE, et al. Effects of feeding increasing levels of wet corn gluten feed on production and ruminal fermentation in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2010; 93: 53295337.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Adamu SS, Egwu GO, Malgwi JT. Biochemical changes in the peritoneal fluid following rumenotomy in goats. Vet Res Commun 1991; 15: 363367.

  • 31. Braun U. Ultrasound as a decision-making tool in abdominal surgery in cows. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2005; 21: 3353.

  • 32. Braun U, Iselin U, Lischer C, et al. Ultrasonographic findings in five cows before and after treatment of reticular abscesses. Vet Rec 1998; 142: 184189.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Kaske M, Midasch A, Rehage J. Sonographic investigation of reticular contractions in healthy sheep, cows and goats and in cows with traumatic reticulo-peritonitis. Zentralbl Veterinarmed A 1994; 41: 748756.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Indications for and factors relating to outcome after rumenotomy or rumenostomy in cattle: 95 cases (1999–2011)

Amanda K. HartnackDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221.

Search for other papers by Amanda K. Hartnack in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Andrew J. NiehausDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221.

Search for other papers by Andrew J. Niehaus in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Marjolaine RousseauDepartment of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.

Search for other papers by Marjolaine Rousseau in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DMV, MS
,
Rebecca L. PentecostDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221.

Search for other papers by Rebecca L. Pentecost in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Matt D. MiesnerDepartment of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.

Search for other papers by Matt D. Miesner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
, and
David E. AndersonDepartment of Clinical Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.

Search for other papers by David E. Anderson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate indications for and factors relating to outcome after rumenotomy or rumenostomy in cattle.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—95 cattle that underwent rumenotomy or rumenostomy.

Procedures—Medical records for 95 cattle that underwent either rumenostomy or rumenotomy at 2 veterinary teaching hospitals in 1999 through 2011 were analyzed. Reasons for the procedures were noted. Long-term outcome was determined during telephone interviews with owners.

Results—42 (44%) bovids underwent rumenostomy and 53 (56%) bovids underwent rumenotomy. Among the 42 animals undergoing rumenostomy, 18 (43%) had rumen cannulas placed during elective procedures. Other indications for rumenostomy included ruminal tympany (bloat [n = 20]), esophageal obstruction (choke [1]), grain overload (1), and provision of access for administration of enteral nutrition (2). Indications for rumenotomy included traumatic reticuloperitonitis (n = 31), bloat (9), foreign body (6), choke (5), and other (2). Long-term follow-up data were available for 31 of 42 (74%) bovids that underwent rumenostomy. Of those 31 animals, 17 (55%) were still in the herd, 4 (13%) had been culled, and 10 (32%) had died or were euthanized. Long-term follow-up data were available for 38 of 53 (72%) bovids that underwent rumenotomy. Of those 38 animals, 13 (34%) were still in the herd, 14 (37%) had been culled, and 11 (29%) had died or been euthanized.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that rumenotomy and rumenostomy can be effective in treating or relieving complications secondary to forestomach disorders in cattle. Bovids undergoing rumen surgery had a favorable prognosis for survival and a fair prognosis for potential return to production.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate indications for and factors relating to outcome after rumenotomy or rumenostomy in cattle.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—95 cattle that underwent rumenotomy or rumenostomy.

Procedures—Medical records for 95 cattle that underwent either rumenostomy or rumenotomy at 2 veterinary teaching hospitals in 1999 through 2011 were analyzed. Reasons for the procedures were noted. Long-term outcome was determined during telephone interviews with owners.

Results—42 (44%) bovids underwent rumenostomy and 53 (56%) bovids underwent rumenotomy. Among the 42 animals undergoing rumenostomy, 18 (43%) had rumen cannulas placed during elective procedures. Other indications for rumenostomy included ruminal tympany (bloat [n = 20]), esophageal obstruction (choke [1]), grain overload (1), and provision of access for administration of enteral nutrition (2). Indications for rumenotomy included traumatic reticuloperitonitis (n = 31), bloat (9), foreign body (6), choke (5), and other (2). Long-term follow-up data were available for 31 of 42 (74%) bovids that underwent rumenostomy. Of those 31 animals, 17 (55%) were still in the herd, 4 (13%) had been culled, and 10 (32%) had died or were euthanized. Long-term follow-up data were available for 38 of 53 (72%) bovids that underwent rumenotomy. Of those 38 animals, 13 (34%) were still in the herd, 14 (37%) had been culled, and 11 (29%) had died or been euthanized.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that rumenotomy and rumenostomy can be effective in treating or relieving complications secondary to forestomach disorders in cattle. Bovids undergoing rumen surgery had a favorable prognosis for survival and a fair prognosis for potential return to production.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Rousseau's present address is Département de sciences cliniques, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC J2S 2M2, Canada.

Dr. Pentecost's present address is Coldwater Animal Clinic, 110 Harvest Dr, Coldwater, OH 45828.

Dr. Anderson's present address is Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.

Presented in abstract form at the 45th Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Montreal, September 2012; and at the Annual Surgery Summit of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, San Antonio, Tex, October 2013.

Address correspondence to Dr. Hartnack (ahartnack@cvm.tamu.edu).