• 1. Begos DG, Modlin IM. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: from gimmick to gold standard. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994; 19: 325330.

  • 2. Devitt CM, Cox RE, Hailey JJ. Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227: 921927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Mayhew PD, Freeman L, Kwan T, et al. Comparison of surgical site infection rates in clean and clean-contaminated wounds in dogs and cats after minimally invasive versus open surgery: 170 cases (2007–2008). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240: 193198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Arulpragasam SP, Case JB, Ellison GW. Evaluation of costs and time required for laparoscopic-assisted versus open cystotomy for urinary cystolith removal in dogs: 43 cases (2009–2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 243: 703708.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, et al. An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 617620.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 2002; 236: 458464.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Brunner WC, Korndorffer JR Jr Sierra R, et al. Laparoscopic virtual reality training: are 30 repetitions enough? Surg Res 2004; 122: 150156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. What is FLS? Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Available at: www.flsprogram.org/index. Accessed Nov 15, 2016.

  • 9. Fransson BA, Ragle CA. Assessment of laparoscopic skills before and after simulation training with a canine abdominal model. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236: 10791084.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Fransson BA, Ragle CA, Bryan ME. A laparoscopic surgical skills assessment tool for veterinarians. J Vet Med Educ 2010; 37: 304313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Champault G, Cazacu F, Taffinder N. Serious trocar accidents in laparoscopic surgery: a French survey of 103,852 operations. Surg Laparsc Endosc 1996; 6: 367370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Pope JF, Knowles TG. Retrospective analysis of the learning curve associated with laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs and associated perioperative complication rates. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 668677.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Hruza M, Weiss HO, Pini G, et al. Complications in 220 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies: standardised evaluation and analysis of learning curves. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 733741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Akin Y, Ates M, Celik O, et al. Complications of urologic laparoscopic surgery: a center surgeon's experience involving 601 procedures including the learning curve. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2013; 29: 275279.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Voitk A, Joffe J, Alvarez C, et al. Factors contributing to laparoscopic failure during the learning curve for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in a community hospital. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 1999; 9: 243248.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Hutchinson R. Marketing endoscopic service in the clinic. In: Tams TR, Rawlings CA, eds. Small animal endoscopy. 3rd ed. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby Inc, 2011;655658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Runge JJ, Mayhew D. Evaluation of single port access gastropexy and ovariectomy using articulating instruments and angled telescopes in dogs. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 807813.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Dujowich M, Keller ME, Reimer SB. Evaluation of short- and long term complication after endoscopically assisted gastropexy in dogs, J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236: 177182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Mayhew PD, Brown DC. Prospective evaluation of two intracorporeally sutured prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy techniques compared with laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 738746.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Greenfield CL, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Frequency of use of various procedures, skills, and areas of knowledge among veterinarians in private practice small animal exclusive or predominant practice and proficiency expected of new veterinary school graduates. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 224: 17801787.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Ward MP, Patronek GJ, Glickman LT. Benefits of prophylactic gastropexy for dogs at risk of gastric dilatation volvulus. Prev Vet Med 2003; 60: 319329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, et al. Health status and population characteristics of dogs and cats examined at private veterinary practices in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 214: 13361341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Case JB, Marvel SJ, Boscan P, et al. Surgical time and severity of postoperative pain in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy with one, two, or three instrument cannulas. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239: 203208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Dupré G, Fiorbianco V, Skalicky M, et al. Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: comparison between single portal and two-portal access. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 818824.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Austin B, Lanz OI, Hamilton SM, et al. Laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy in nine dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003; 39: 391396.

  • 26. Culp WT, Mayhew PD, Brown DC. The effect of laparoscopic versus open ovariectomy on postsurgical activity in small dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 811817.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Mayhew PD. Complications of minimally invasive surgery in companion animals. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2011; 41: 10071021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Rawlings CA, Mahaffey MB, Bement S, et al. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs susceptible to gastric dilatation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 221: 15761581.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Dodds WB, Monroe KB. The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Adv Consum Res 1985; 12: 8590.

  • 30. Mayhew PD, Cimino Brown D. Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 541547.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Coisman JG, Case JB, Clark ND, et al. Efficacy of decontamination and sterilization of a single-use single-incision laparoscopic surgery port. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74: 934938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Roth K, Heeg P, Reichl R. Specific hygiene issues relating to reprocessing and reuse of single-use devices for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 10911097.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Chan ACW, Ip M, Koehler A, et al. Is it safe to reuse disposable trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 10421044.

  • 34. Davidson EB, Moll HD, Payton ME. Comparison of laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 6269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, et al. Impact of hand dominance, gender, and experience with computer games on performance in virtual reality laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 10821085.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. Suleman R, Yang T, Paige J, et al. Hand-eye dominance and depth perception effects in performance on a basic laparoscopic skills set. JSLS 2010; 14: 3540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37. Hanna GB, Drew T, Clinch P, et al. Psychomotor skills for endoscopic manipulations: differing abilities between right and left-handed individuals. Ann Surg 1997; 225: 333338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Evaluation of the economic and clinical feasibility of introducing rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy to a small animal general practice

Kelly Jones DVM1, J. Brad Case DVM, MS2, Brian Evans DVM3, and Eric Monnet DVM, PhD4
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
  • | 2 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
  • | 3 Coastal Animal Hospital, 434 N Coast Hwy 101, Encinitas, CA 92024
  • | 4 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the economic and clinical feasibility of introducing rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy to a small animal general practice.

DESIGN Prospective study.

SAMPLE A single 2-veterinarian small animal practice in southern California.

PROCEDURES In early 2012, endoscopic equipment was purchased, and both veterinarians in the practice undertook training in rigid endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures. Subsequently, information for client-owned animals that underwent endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures during a 12-month period (2012 to 2013) was collected. Cost of equipment and training, revenue generated, specific procedures performed, surgery time, complications, and client satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS 78 endoscopic procedures were performed in 73 patients, including 71 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 rabbit. Cost of endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment and training in the first year was $14,809.71; most equipment was financed through a 5-year lease at a total cost of $57,507.70 ($ 10,675.20/y). Total revenue generated in the first year was $50,423.63. The most common procedures performed were ovariectomy (OVE; n = 49), prophylactic gastropexy (6), and video otoscopy (12). Mean ± SD surgery times for OVE (n = 44) and for OVE with gastropexy (5) were 63.7 ± 19.7 minutes and 73.0 ± 33.5 minutes; respectively. Twelve of 54 patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures experienced minor intraoperative complications. Conversion to laparotomy was not required in any patient. There were no major complications. All 49 clients available for follow-up were satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE With appropriate training and equipment, incorporation of basic rigid endoscopy and laparoscopy may be feasible in small animal general practice. However, results of the present study are not applicable to all veterinarians and practice settings, and patient safety considerations should always be paramount.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Evans (brian@sdcoastalanimal.com).