• 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.

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)