• 1. Keir I, Woolford L, Hirst C, et al. Fatal aortic oesophageal fistula following oesophageal foreign body removal in a dog. J Small Anim Pract 2010; 51: 657660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Leib MS, Sartor LL. Esophageal foreign body obstruction caused by a dental chew treat in 31 dogs (2000–2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 232: 10211025.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Ranen E, Lavy E, Aizenberg I, et al. Spirocercosis-associated esophageal sarcomas in dogs: a retrospective study of 17 cases (1997–2003). Vet Parasitol 2004; 119: 209221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Gregory CR, Gourley IM, Bruyette DS, et al. Free jejunal segment for treatment of cervical esophageal stricture in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988; 193: 230232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Kyles AE. Esophagus. In: Tobias KM, Johnston AS, eds. Veterinary surgery: small animal. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders Co, 2012; 14611483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Pavletic MM. Reconstructive esophageal surgery in the dog: a literature review and case report. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1981; 17: 435444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Bouayad H, Caywood DD, Alyakine H, et al. Surgical reconstruction of partial circumferential esophageal defect in the dog. J Invest Surg 1992; 5: 327342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Moore TC, Goldstein J. Use of intact omentum for closure of full-thickness esophageal defects. Surgery 1959; 45: 899904.

  • 9. Flanders JA. Problems and complications associated with esophageal surgery. Probl Vet Med 1989; 1: 183194.

  • 10. Parker NR, Caywood DD. Surgical disease of the esophagus. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987; 17: 333358.

  • 11. Schunk C. Esophagus. In: Bojrab MJ, ed. Current techniques in small animal surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1990;201205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Sale CSH, Williams JM. Results of transthoracic esophagotomy retrieval of esophageal foreign body obstructions in dogs: 14 cases (2000–2004). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2006; 42: 450456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Doran IP, Wright CA, Moore AH. Acute oropharyngeal and esophageal stick injury in forty-one dogs. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 781785.

  • 14. White RAS, Lane JG. Pharyngeal stick penetration injuries in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1988; 29: 1335.

  • 15. Ranen E, Shamir MH, Sahar R, et al. Partial esophagectomy with single layer closure for treatment of esophageal sarcomas in 6 dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 428434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Alanezi K, Urschel JD. Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 10: 7175.

  • 17. Evans HE. The alimentary canal. In: Evans HE, ed. Miller's anatomy of the dog. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1993;422425.

  • 18. Shamir MH, Shahar R, Johnston DE, et al. Approaches to esophageal sutures. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1999; 21: 414421.

  • 19. Orton EC. Esophagus. In: Orton EC, ed. Small animal thoracic surgery. Baltimore: Lea & Febiger, 1995; 117132.

  • 20. Hulscher JB, Tijissen JG, Obertop H, et al. Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for carcinoma of the esophagus: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72: 306313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Lerut T, Coosemans W, Decker G, et al. Anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Dig Surg 2002; 19: 9298.

  • 22. Houlton JEF, Herrtage ME, Taylor PM, et al. Thoracic oesophageal foreign bodies in the dog: a review of 90 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1985; 26: 521536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Markar SR, Arya S, Karthikesalingam A, et al. Technical factors that affect anastomotic integrity following esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 42744281.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Urschel JD. Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 1995; 169: 634640.

  • 25. Oakes MG, Hosgood G, Snider TG, et al. Esophagotomy closure in the dog: a comparison of a double-layer appositional and two single-layer appositional techniques. Vet Surg 1993; 22: 451456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Sumner-Smith G. Oesophagotomy and oesophageal resection. J Small Anim Pract 1973; 14: 429438.

  • 27. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Vyas S, et al. Hand-sewn versus stapled oesophago-gastric anastomosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15: 876884.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Perioperative morbidity and outcome of esophageal surgery in dogs and cats: 72 cases (1993–2013)

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 2 Department of Veterinary Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 4 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 5 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
  • | 6 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 7 Section of Surgery, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 8 Section of Surgery, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 9 Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
  • | 10 Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.
  • | 11 Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.
  • | 12 Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.
  • | 13 Alta Vista Animal Hospital, 2616 Bank St, Ottawa, ON K1T 1M9, Canada.
  • | 14 Department of Veterinary Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 15 Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate perioperative morbidity and outcome in dogs and cats undergoing esophageal surgery.

DESIGN Retrospective case series.

ANIMALS 63 client-owned dogs and 9 client-owned cats.

PROCEDURES Medical records of dogs and cats that underwent esophageal surgery were reviewed for information on signalment, history, results of preoperative diagnostic testing, condition treated, details of surgery, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications. Long-term follow-up data were obtained via veterinarian and client telephone conversations. The relationship between complications and survival to hospital discharge was evaluated by means of regression analysis.

RESULTS The most common indication for surgical intervention was an esophageal foreign body in dogs (50/63 [79%]) and esophageal stricture in cats (3/9). Complications were documented in 54% (34/63) of dogs and 3 of 9 cats. The most common immediate postoperative complications were respiratory in nature (9 dogs, 1 cat). Partial esophagectomy and resection with anastomosis were significantly associated with the development of immediate postoperative complications in dogs. The most common delayed postoperative complications were persistent regurgitation (7 dogs) and esophageal stricture formation (3 dogs, 1 cat). For dogs, a mass lesion and increasing lesion size were significantly associated with the development of delayed postoperative complications. Six dogs (10%) and 1 cat died or were euthanized prior to discharge, and pneumomediastinum and leukopenia were negative prognostic factors for dogs being discharged from the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results of this study suggested that the short-term prognosis for dogs and cats that survive surgery for treatment of esophageal lesions is favorable, with 90% of patients discharged from the hospital (57/63 dogs; 8/9 cats). However, dogs treated for more extensive esophageal lesions as well as those undergoing esophagectomy or resection and anastomosis were more likely to develop postoperative complications.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Scotti's present address is College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845.

Dr. Siebert's present address is Southwest Veterinary Surgical Service, 86 W Juniper Ave, Ste 4, Gilbert, AZ 85233.

Dr. Nucci's present address is Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Address correspondence to Dr. Culp (wculp@ucdavis.edu).