• 1. Fossum TW. Small animal surgery. St Louis: Elsevier, 2007; 411474.

  • 2. Byrne J, Saleh F, Ambrosini L, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 25252532.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Bartels SAL, Vlug MS, Hollmann MW, et al. Small bowel obstruction, incisional hernia and survival after laparoscopic and open colonic resection (LAFA study). Br J Surg 2014; 101: 11531159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Saleh F, Ambrosini L, Jackson T, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 23812386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Isaksson K, Montgomery A, Moberg A-C, et al. Long-term follow-up for adhesive small bowel obstruction after open versus laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 11731177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes comparison. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013; 23: 17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ. Mastery of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013; 484495.

  • 8. O'Connor DB, Winter DC. The role of laparoscopy in the management of acute small-bowel obstruction: a review of over 2,000 cases. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Suter M, Zermatten P, Halkic N, et al. Laparoscopic management of mechanical small bowel obstruction: are there predictors of success or failure? Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 478483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Mathieu X, Thill V, Simoens C, et al. Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction: a retrospective study on 156 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 2008; 55: 522526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Gower SB, Mayhew PD. A wound retraction device for laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 485488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Case JB, Ellison G. Single incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery (SILAIS) in 7 dogs and 1 cat. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 629634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. 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
  • 14. Culp WTN, 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
  • 15. 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: 179 cases (2007–2008). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240: 193198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. 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
  • 17. Winter MD, Barry KS, Johnson MD, et al. Ultrasonographic and computed tomographic characterization and localization of suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2017; 251: 315321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Runge JJ, Mayhew PD. 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
  • 19. Hayes G. Gastrointestinal foreign bodies in dogs and cats: a retrospective study of 208 cases. J Small Anim Pract 2009; 50: 576583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Aronson LR, Brockman DJ, Brown DC. Gastrointestinal emergencies. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2000; 30: 555579.

  • 21. Grimes JA, Schmiedt CW, Cornell KK, et al. Identification of risk factors for septic peritonitis and failure to survive following gastrointestinal surgery in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 238: 486494.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Boag AK, Coe RJ, Martinez TA, et al. Acid-base and electrolyte abnormalities in dogs with gastrointestinal foreign bodies. J Vet Intern Med 2005; 19: 816821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Sharma A, Thompson MS, Scrivani PV, et al. Comparison of radiography and ultrasonography for diagnosing small-intestinal mechanical obstruction in vomiting dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011; 52: 248255.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Fields EL, Robertson ID, Osborne JA, et al. Comparison of abdominal computed tomography and abdominal ultrasound in sedated dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53: 513517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Shanaman MM, Schwarz T, Gal A, et al. Comparison between survey radiography, B-mode ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography findings in dogs with acute abdominal signs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013; 54: 591604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Altintoprak F, Degirmenci B, Dikicier E, et al. CT findings of patients with small bowel obstruction due to bezoar: a descriptive study. Sci World J 2013; 298392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Burkill G, Bell J, Healy J. Small bowel obstruction: the role of computed tomography in its diagnosis and management with reference to other imaging modalities. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 14051422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Frager D, Medwid SW, Baer JW, et al. CT of small-bowel obstruction: value in establishing the diagnosis and determining the degree and cause. AJR Am J Radiol 1994; 162: 3741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Buote NJ, Kovak-McClaran JR, Schold JD. Conversion from diagnostic laparoscopy to laparotomy: risk factors and occurrence. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 106114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Bille C, Auvigne V, Bomassi E, et al. An evidence-based medicine approach to small animal anaesthetic mortality in a referral practice: the influence of initiating three recommendations on subsequent anaesthetic deaths. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014; 41: 249258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Bille C, Auvigne V, Libermann S, et al. Risk of anaesthetic mortality in dogs and cats: an observational cohort study of 3546 cases. Vet Anaesth Analg 2012; 39: 5968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Brodbelt DC, Blissitt KJ, Hammond RA, et al. The risk of death: the Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Small Animal Fatalities. Vet Anaesth Analg 2008; 35: 365373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Davies JA, Fransson BA, Davis AM, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for postoperative regurgitation and vomiting in dogs: 244 cases (2000–2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015; 246: 327335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Ovbey DH, Wilson DV, Bednarski RM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for canine post-anesthetic aspiration pneumonia (1999–2009): a multicenter study. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014; 41: 127136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Diagnostic usefulness of laparoscopy versus exploratory laparotomy for dogs with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
  • | 2 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
  • | 3 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
  • | 4 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
  • | 5 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.
  • | 6 Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopy versus exploratory laparotomy for the diagnosis of specific lesions in dogs with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction.

DESIGN Controlled trial.

ANIMALS 16 client-owned dogs with physical and radiographic findings consistent with gastrointestinal obstruction.

PROCEDURES Single-incision laparoscopy with intracorporeal and extracorporeal examination of the gastrointestinal tract was performed by 1 surgeon. Immediately afterward, exploratory laparotomy was performed by a second surgeon. Accessibility and gross appearance of organs, surgical diagnoses, incision lengths, procedure duration, and complications were compared between diagnostic techniques.

RESULTS Mean (95% confidence interval) incision length was 4.9 cm (3.9 to 5.9 cm) for laparoscopy and 16.4 cm (14.0 to 18.7 cm) for exploratory laparotomy. Mean (95% confidence interval) procedure duration was 36.8 minutes (31.6 to 41.2 minutes) and 12.8 minutes (11.4 to 14.3 minutes), respectively. Diagnoses of the cause of obstruction were the same with both methods. In 13 dogs, the laparoscopic examination was successfully completed, and in the other 3, it was incomplete. In 4 dogs in which laparoscopy was successful, conversion to exploratory laparotomy or considerable extension of the laparoscopic incision would have been required to allow subsequent surgical treatment of identified lesions. No dogs developed major complications, and minor complication rates were similar between procedures.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Laparoscopy was feasible and clinically applicable in dogs with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction. Careful patient selection and liberal criteria for conversion to an open surgical approach are recommended when laparoscopy is considered for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in dogs.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopy versus exploratory laparotomy for the diagnosis of specific lesions in dogs with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction.

DESIGN Controlled trial.

ANIMALS 16 client-owned dogs with physical and radiographic findings consistent with gastrointestinal obstruction.

PROCEDURES Single-incision laparoscopy with intracorporeal and extracorporeal examination of the gastrointestinal tract was performed by 1 surgeon. Immediately afterward, exploratory laparotomy was performed by a second surgeon. Accessibility and gross appearance of organs, surgical diagnoses, incision lengths, procedure duration, and complications were compared between diagnostic techniques.

RESULTS Mean (95% confidence interval) incision length was 4.9 cm (3.9 to 5.9 cm) for laparoscopy and 16.4 cm (14.0 to 18.7 cm) for exploratory laparotomy. Mean (95% confidence interval) procedure duration was 36.8 minutes (31.6 to 41.2 minutes) and 12.8 minutes (11.4 to 14.3 minutes), respectively. Diagnoses of the cause of obstruction were the same with both methods. In 13 dogs, the laparoscopic examination was successfully completed, and in the other 3, it was incomplete. In 4 dogs in which laparoscopy was successful, conversion to exploratory laparotomy or considerable extension of the laparoscopic incision would have been required to allow subsequent surgical treatment of identified lesions. No dogs developed major complications, and minor complication rates were similar between procedures.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Laparoscopy was feasible and clinically applicable in dogs with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction. Careful patient selection and liberal criteria for conversion to an open surgical approach are recommended when laparoscopy is considered for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in dogs.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Case (caseb@ufl.edu).