• 1. Jergens AE, Willard MD, Allenspach K. Maximizing the diagnostic utility of endoscopic biopsy in dogs and cats with gastrointestinal disease. Vet J 2016;214:5060.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Vignoli M, Saunders JH. Image-guided interventional procedures in the dog and cat. Vet J 2011;187:297303.

  • 3. Craven M, Simpson JW, Ridyard AE, et al. Canine inflammatory bowel disease: retrospective analysis of diagnosis and outcome in 80 cases (1995–2002). J Small Anim Pract 2004;45:336342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Mayhew P. Techniques for laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted biopsy of abdominal organs. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2009;31:170176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Mitterman L, Bonczynski J, Hearon K, et al. Comparison of perioperative and short-term postoperative complications of gastrointestinal biopsies via laparoscopic-assisted technique versus laparotomy. Can Vet J 2016;57:395400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. 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
  • 7. Case JB, Ellison G. Single incision laparoscopic-assisted intestinal surgery (SILAIS) in 7 dogs and 1 cat. Vet Surg 2013;42:629634.

  • 8. Slovak JE, Wang C, Morrison JA, et al. Endoscopic assessment of the duodenum in dogs with inflammatory bowel disease. J Vet Intern Med 2014;28:14421446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Willard MD, Mansell J, Fosgate GT, et al. Effect of sample quality on the sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy for detecting gastric and duodenal lesions in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2008;22:10841089.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Kleinschmidt S, Meneses F, Noltr I, et al. Retrospective study on the diagnostic value of full-thickness biopsies from the stomach and intestine of dogs with chronic gastrointestinal disease symptoms. Vet Pathol 2006;43:10001003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Bleedorn JA, Dykema JL, Hardie RJ. Minimally invasive surgery in veterinary practice: a 2010 survey of diplomates and residents of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons. Vet Surg 2013;42:635642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Polymeneas G, Theodosopoulos T, Stamatiadis A, et al. A comparative study of postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2001;15:4143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Hewett PJ, Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, et al. Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial. Ann Surg 2008;248:728738.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Davidson EB, Moll HD, Payton ME. Comparison of laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2004;33:6269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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
  • 19. McClaran JK, Skerrett SC, Currao RL, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted technique and open laparotomy for gastrointestinal biopsy in cats. Vet Surg 2017;46:821828.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Baron J, Giuffrida M, Mayhew PD, et al. Minimally invasive small intestinal exploration and targeted abdominal organ biopsy with a wound retraction device in 42 cats (2005–2015). Vet Surg 2017;46:925932.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Mayhew PD, Brown DC. Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg 2007;36:541547.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. McDevitt HL, Mayhew PD, Giuffrida MA, et al. Short-term clinical outcome of laparoscopic liver biopsy in dogs: 106 cases (2003–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;248:8390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Rawlings CA, Diamond H, Howerth EW, et al. Diagnostic quality of percutaneous kidney biopsy specimens obtained with laparoscopy versus ultrasound guidance in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:317321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Wright T, Singh A, Mayhew PD, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in dogs: 18 cases (2012–2014). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;248:916922.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Kusafuka J, Yamataka A, Okazaki T, et al. Gastroschisis reduction using “Applied Alexis,” a wound protector and retractor. Pediatr Surg Int 2005;21:925927.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Tsunezuka Y, Oda M, Moriyama H. Wound retraction system for lung resection by video-assisted mini-thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:110111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Horiuchi T, Tanishima H, Tamagawa K, et al. Randomized, controlled investigation of the anti-infective properties of the Alexis retractor/protector of incision sites. J Trauma 2007;62:212215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Hong TH, You YK, Lee KH. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: scarless cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2009;23:13931397.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Beresford T, Misselhom D. Wound protector/retractor for improved access in infrainguinal vascular surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014;96:169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Dessy LA, Fallico N, Serrate F, et al. The use of the Alexis device in breast augmentation to improve outcomes: a comparative randomized case-control survey. Gland Surg 2016;5:287294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Wormser C, Singhal S, Holt DE, et al. Thoracoscopic-assisted pulmonary surgery for partial and complete lung lobectomy in dogs and cats: 11 cases (2008–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014;245:10361041.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Adamovich-Rippe KN, Mayhew PD, Runge JJ, et al. Evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy for treatment of canine pyometra. Vet Surg 2013;42:572578.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Mayhew PD, Mayhew KN, Shilo-Benjamini Y, et al. Prospective evaluation of access incision position for minimally invasive surgical organ exposure in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014;245:11291134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. 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
  • 35. Fitzgerald E, Lam R, Drees R. Improving conspicuity of the canine gastrointestinal wall using dual phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2017;58:151162.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36. 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
  • 37. Harvey HJ. Complications of small intestinal biopsy in hypoalbuminemic dogs. Vet Surg 1990;19:289292.

  • 38. Shales CJ, Warren J, Anderson DM, et al. Complications following full-thickness small intestinal biopsy in 66 dogs: a retrospective study. J Small Anim Pract 2005;46:317321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Evaluation of minimally invasive small intestinal exploration and targeted abdominal organ biopsy with use of a wound retraction device in dogs: 27 cases (2010–2017)

View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 5K2, Canada.
  • | 2 2Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 3Section of Surgery, Department of Clinical Studies–Philadelphia, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 4 4Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe surgical technique, biopsy sample quality, and short-term outcome of minimally invasive small intestinal exploration and targeted abdominal organ biopsy (MISIETB) with use of a wound retraction device (WRD) in dogs.

ANIMALS

27 client-owned dogs that underwent MISIETB with a WRD at 1 of 4 academic veterinary hospitals between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2017.

PROCEDURES

Medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and data collected included signalment; medical history; findings from physical, ultrasonographic, laparoscopic, cytologic, and histologic evaluations; surgical indications, procedures, duration, and complications; and short-term (14-day) outcomes. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were calculated for numeric variables.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic exploration was performed through a multicannulated single port (n = 18), multiple ports (5), or a single 6-mm cannula (4). Median length of the incision for WRD placement was 4 cm (interquartile [25th to 75th percentile] range, 3 to 6 cm). All biopsy samples obtained had sufficient diagnostic quality. The 2 most common histologic diagnoses were lymphoplasmacytic enteritis (n = 14) and intestinal lymphoma (5). Twenty-five of 27 (93%) dogs survived to hospital discharge, and 3 (12%) dogs had postsurgical abnormalities unrelated to surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that MISIETB with WRD was an effective method for obtaining diagnostic biopsy samples of the stomach, small intestine, pancreas, liver, and mesenteric lymph nodes in dogs. Prospective comparison between MISIETB with WRD and traditional laparotomy for abdominal organ biopsy in dogs is warranted.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Shamir'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. Singh (amsingh@uoguelph.ca).