• 1.

    Binvel M, Poujol L, Peyron C, Dunie-Merigot A, Bernardin F. Endoscopic and surgical removal of oesophageal and gastric fishhook foreign bodies in 33 animals. J Small Anim Pract. 2018;59(1):4549.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Deroy C, Corcuff JB, Billen F, Hamaide A. Removal of oesophageal foreign bodies: comparison between oesophagoscopy and oesophagotomy in 39 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2015;56(10):613617.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Brisson BA, Wainberg SH, Malek S, Reabel S, Defarges A, Sears WC. Risk factors and prognostic indicators for surgical outcome of dogs with esophageal foreign body obstructions. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018;252(3):301308.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Burton AG, Talbot CT, Kent MS. Risk factors for death in dogs treated for esophageal foreign body obstruction: a retrospective cohort study of 222 cases (1998–2017). J Vet Intern Med. 2017;31(6):16861690.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Juvet F, Pinilla M, Shiel RE, Mooney CT. Oesophageal foreign bodies in dogs: factors affecting success of endoscopic retrieval. Ir Vet J. 2010;63(3):163168.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Houlton JEF, Herrtage ME, Taylor PM, Watkins SB. Thoracic oesophageal foreign bodies in the dog: a review of ninety cases. J Small Anim Pract. 1985;26(9):521536.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Gianella P, Pfammatter NS, Burgener IA. Oesophageal and gastric endoscopic foreign body removal: complications and follow-up of 102 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2009;50(12):649654.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Rousseau A, Prittie J, Broussard JD, Fox PR, Hoskinson J. Incidence and characterization of esophagitis following esophageal foreign body removal in dogs: 60 cases (1999–2003). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2007;17(2):159163.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Bongard AB, Furrow E, Granick JL. Retrospective evaluation of factors associated with degree of esophagitis, treatment, and outcomes in dogs presenting with esophageal foreign bodies (2004–2014): 114 cases. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2019;29(5):528534.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Dollo V, Chambers G, Carothers M. Endoscopic retrieval of gastric and oesophageal foreign bodies in 52 cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2020;61(1):5156.

  • 11.

    Thompson HC, Cortes Y, Gannon K, Bailey D, Freer S. Esophageal foreign bodies in dogs: 34 cases (2004–2009). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2012;22(2):253261.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Moore AH. Removal of oesophageal foreign bodies in dogs: use of the fluoroscopic method and outcome. J Small Anim Pract. 2001;42(5):227230.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Sterman AA, Mankin KMT, Ham KM, Cook AK. Likelihood and outcome of esophageal perforation secondary to esophageal foreign body in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018;253(8):10531056.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Wyatt SR, Barron PM. Complications following removal of oesophageal foreign bodies: a retrospective review of 349 cases. Aust Vet J. 2019;97(4):116121.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Teh H, Winters L, James F, Irwin P, Beck C, Mansfield C. Medical management of esophageal perforation secondary to esophageal foreign bodies in 5 dogs. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2018;28(5):464468.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    MacManus JE, Dameron JT, Paine JR. The extent to which one may interfere with the blood supply of the esophagus and obtain healing on anastomosis. Surgery. 1950;28(1):1123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Aronson LR, Brockman DJ, Brown DC. Gastrointestinal emergencies. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2000;30(3):555579.

  • 18.

    Sutton JS, Culp WT, Scotti K, et al. Perioperative morbidity and outcome of esophageal surgery in dogs and cats: 72 cases (1993–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016;249(7):787793.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Sale CS, 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(6):450456.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Aertsens A, Hernandez J, Ragetly GR, Poncet CM. Surgical extraction of canine oesophageal foreign bodies through a gastrotomy approach: 12 cases. J Small Anim Pract. 2016;57(7):354359.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    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):6169.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Delligianni A, Papazoglou LG, Savvas I, et al. Transdiaphragmatic gastrotomy for the extraction of distal esophageal foreign bodies in 13 dogs (1997–2016). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2020;56(1):1722.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    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(7):10211025.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Spielman BL, Shaker EH, Garvey MS. Esophageal foreign body in dogs: a retrospective study of 23 cases. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1992;28:570574.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Flanders JA. Problems and complications associated with esophageal surgery. Probl Vet Med. 1989;1(2):183194.

  • 26.

    Zimmer JF. Canine esophageal foreign bodies: endoscopic, surgical, and medical management. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1984;20(4):669677.

Advertisement

Complications associated with and outcome of surgical intervention for treatment of esophageal foreign bodies in dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, England
  • | 2 Langford Vets, Langford, Bristol, England
  • | 3 Davies Veterinary Specialists, Higham Gobion, Hertfordshire, England
  • | 4 Section of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • | 5 Anderson Moores Veterinary Specialists Ltd, Winchester, Hampshire, England
  • | 6 North Downs Specialist Referrals, Bletchingley, Surrey, England
  • | 7 Vets Now 24/7 Emergency and Specialty Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland
  • | 8 Willows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, West Midlands, England
  • | 9 Peninsula Vet Care Emergency and Referral Hospital, Mornington, Victoria, Australia
  • | 10 Rowe Referrals, Bradley Stoke, Bristol, England
  • | 11 Dick White Referrals, Six Mile Bottom, Cambridgeshire, England

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify complications associated with and short- and long-term outcomes of surgical intervention for treatment of esophageal foreign bodies (EFBs) in dogs.

ANIMALS

63 client-owned dogs.

PROCEDURES

Patient records from 9 veterinary hospitals were reviewed to identify dogs that underwent surgery for removal of an EFB or treatment or an associated esophageal perforation between 2007 and 2019. Long-term follow-up data were obtained via a client questionnaire.

RESULTS

54 of the 63 (85.7%) dogs underwent surgery after an unsuccessful minimally invasive procedure or subsequent evidence of esophageal perforation was identified. Esophageal perforation was present at the time of surgery in 42 (66.7%) dogs. Most dogs underwent a left intercostal thoracotomy (37/63 [58.7%]). Intraoperative complications occurred in 18 (28.6%) dogs, and 28 (50%) dogs had a postoperative complication. Postoperative complications were minor in 14 of the 28 (50%) dogs. Dehiscence of the esophagotomy occurred in 3 dogs. Forty-seven (74.6%) dogs survived to discharge. Presence of esophageal perforation preoperatively, undergoing a thoracotomy, and whether a gastrostomy tube was placed were significantly associated with not surviving to discharge. Follow-up information was available for 38 of 47 dogs (80.9%; mean follow-up time, 46.5 months). Infrequent vomiting or regurgitation was reported by 5 of 20 (25%) owners, with 1 dog receiving medication.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that surgical management of EFBs can be associated with a high success rate. Surgery should be considered when an EFB cannot be removed safely with minimally invasive methods or esophageal perforation is present.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Appendix S1 (PDF 49 KB)

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Beer (andrew.beer.2018@bristol.ac.uk)