Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1.
Glen JB. Canine salivary mucocoeles. Results of sialographic examination and surgical treatment of fifty cases. J Small Anim Pract. 1972;13(9):515–526.
-
2.
Spreull JS, Head KW. Cervical salivary cysts in the dog. J Small Anim Pract. 1967;8(1):17–35.
-
3.
Karbe E, Nielsen SW. Canine ranulas, salivary mucoceles, and brachial cysts. J Small Anim Pract. 1966;7(10):625–630.
-
4.
Harvey CE. Sialography in the dog. Vet Radiol. 1969;10(1):18–27.
-
5.
Hulland TJ, Archibald J. Salivary mucoceles in dogs. Can Vet J. 1964;5(5):109–117.
-
6.
Watanabe K, Miyawaki S, Kanayama M, et al. First case of salivary mucocele originating from the minor salivary gland of the soft palate in a dog. J Vet Med Sci. 2012;74(1):71–74.
-
7.
Bellenger CR, Simpson DJ. Canine sialoceles – 60 clinical cases. J Small Anim Pract. 1992;33(8):376–380.
-
8.
Ritter MJ, von Pfeil D, Stanley B, Hauptman JG, Walshaw R. Mandibular and sublingual sialocoeles in the dog: a retrospective evaluation of 41 cases, using the ventral approach for treatment. N Z Vet J. 2006;54(6):333–337.
-
9.
Proot JL, Nelissen P, Ladlow JF, et al. Parotidectomy for the treatment of parotid sialocoele in 14 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2016;57(2):79–83.
-
10.
Henry CJ. Salivary mucocele associated with dirofilariasis in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992;200(12):1965–1966.
-
11.
McGill S, Lester N, McLachlan A, Mansfield C. Concurrent sialocele and necrotising sialadenitis in a dog. J Small Anim Pract. 2009;50(3):151–156.
-
12.
Kazemi D, Doustar Y, Assadnassab G. Surgical treatment of a chronically recurring case of cervical mucocele in a German Shepherd Dog. Case Rep Vet Med. 2012;2012(8):954343. doi:10.1155/2012/954343
-
13.
Kiefer KM, Davis GJ. Salivary mucoceles in cats: a retrospective study of seven cases. Vet Med. 2007;102:582–585.
-
14.
Lane JG. Surgical treatment of sialoceles. In: Verstraete FJM, Lommer MJ, eds. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Dogs and Cats. Elsevier Saunders; 2012:501–510.
-
15.
Marsh A, Adin C. Tunneling under the digastricus muscle increases salivary duct exposure and completeness of excision in mandibular and sublingual sialoadenectomy in dogs. Vet Surg. 2013;42(3):238–242.
-
16.
Hedlund CS. Salivary mucoceles. In: Fossum TW, ed. Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Mosby Elsevier; 2007:370–372.
-
17.
Hoffer RE. Symposium on surgical techniques in small animal practice. Surgical treatment of salivary mucocele. Vet Clin North Am. 1975;5(3):333–341.
-
18.
Kazaryan AM, Røsok BI, Edwin B. Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events. ISRN Surg. 2013;2013:625093. doi:10.1155/2013/625093
-
19.
Follette CM, Giuffrida MA, Balsa IM, et al. A systematic review of criteria used to report complications in soft tissue and oncologic surgical clinical research studies in dogs and cats. Vet Surg. 2020;49(1):61–69.
-
20.
Wisner ER, Zwingenberger AL. Salivary glands. In: Wisner ER, Zwingenberger AL, eds. Atlas of Small Animal CT and MRI. John Wiley & Sons; 2015:98–106.
-
21.
Harvey CE. The tongue, lips, cheeks, pharynx, and salivary glands. In: Slatter DH, ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 2nd ed. Saunders; 1993:510–520.
-
22.
Tsioli V, Papazoglou LG, Basdani E, et al. Surgical management of recurrent cervical sialoceles in four dogs. JSmall Anim Pract. 2013;54(6):331–333.
-
23.
Ryan T, Welsh E, McGorum I, Yool D. Sublingual salivary gland sialolithiasis in a dog. J Small Anim Pract. 2008;49(5):254–256.
-
24.
Smith MM. Lateral approach for surgical management of feline sublingual sialocele. J Vet Dent. 2015;32(3):198–200.
-
25.
Weber WJ, Hobson HP, Wilson SR. Pharyngeal mucoceles in dogs. Vet Surg. 1986;15(1):5–8.
-
26.
Rosenthal R, Hoffmann H, Clavien PA, Bucher HC, Dell-Kuster S. Definition and Classification of Intraoperative Complications (CLASSIC): Delphi study and pilot evaluation. World J Surg. 2015;39(7):1663–1671.
-
27.
Suh HJ, Chung DJ, Lee AJ, et al. Abnormal changes in both mandibular salivary glands in a dog: non-mineral radiopaque sialoliths. Can Vet J. 2015;56(10):1025–1028.
-
28.
Laughlin RS, Johnson RL, Burkle CM, Staff NP. Postsurgical neuropathy: a descriptive review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(2):355–369.
-
29.
Claeys S. Dehiscence. In: Griffon D, Hamaide H, eds Complications in Small Animal Surgery. Wiley Blackwell; 2016:57–62.
-
30.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213.
-
31.
Juergens T, Hjelm GK, Lange RL. Mandibular sialoadenectomy. Iowa State Univ Vet. 1974;36(3):94–98.
-
32.
MacPhail CM, Monnet E. Outcome of and postoperative complications in dogs undergoing surgical treatment of laryngeal paralysis: 140 cases (1985–1998). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218(12):1949–1956.
-
33.
Raske M, McClaran JK, Mariano A. Short-term wound complications and predictive variables for complication after limb amputation in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2015;56(4):247–252.
-
34.
Strickland R, Tivers MS, Adamantos SE, Harcourt-Brown TR, Fowkes RC, Lipscomb VJ. Incidence and risk factors for neurological signs after attenuation of single congenital portosystemic shunts in 253 dogs. Vet Surg. 2018;47(6):745–755.
-
35.
Hughes J. Anaesthesia for the geriatric dog and cat. Ir Vet J. 2008;61(6):380–387.
-
36.
Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:211–217.
-
37.
Packer RMA, O’Neill DG, Fletcher F, Farnworth MJ. Great expectations, inconvenient truths, and the paradoxes of the dog-owner relationship for owners of brachycephalic dogs. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219918. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219918
-
38.
Sarkar S, Seshadri D. Conducting record review studies in clinical practice. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(9):JG01–JG04. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/8301.4806
Advertisement
Multi-institutional study of long-term outcomes of a ventral versus lateral approach for mandibular and sublingual sialoadenectomy in dogs with a unilateral sialocele: 46 cases (1999–2019)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To compare the long-term outcomes of a ventral versus lateral surgical approach for mandibular and sublingual sialoadenectomy in dogs with a unilateral sialocele.
ANIMALS
46 client-owned dogs.
PROCEDURES
Medical records of dogs that underwent unilateral sialoadenectomy between 1999 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed, and information was collected regarding signalment, clinical signs, historical treatment, swelling location, diagnostic imaging findings, sialoadenectomy approach, adjunctive treatments, intraoperative complications, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, recurrence, and contralateral sialocele development.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences in incidences of intraoperative complications, recurrence, or postoperative complications between dogs in which a lateral versus ventral approach was used. Clinically important intraoperative complications included iatrogenic tears in the oral mucosa, ligature slippage from the duct end, hemorrhage, and possible lingual nerve transection. Surgical experience was associated with the likelihood that intraoperative complications would develop. Suspected recurrence was reported in 2 of 26 (8%) dogs that underwent a lateral approach and 2 of 12 (17%) dogs that underwent a ventral approach. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter with the lateral approach than with the ventral approach. Postoperative complications had a short-term onset and occurred in 4 of 25 (16%) dogs that underwent a lateral approach and 3 of 12 (25%) dogs that underwent a ventral approach. Age and presence of a pharyngeal sialocele were associated with development of postoperative complications.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Long-term outcomes for ventral and lateral approaches to sialoadenectomy were favorable and appeared to be comparable. Further prospective study into potential associations of sialoadenectomy approach, age, and pharyngeal sialoceles on outcome is needed.
Contributor Notes
Powered by PubFactory