• 1. Weiland ST, Schurr MJ. Conservative management of ingested foreign bodies. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6: 496500.

  • 2. Vizcarrondo FJ, Brady PG, Nord HJ. Foreign bodies of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointest Endosc 1983; 29: 208210.

  • 3. Ikenberry SO, Jue TL, Anderson MA, et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline: management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 10851091.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Calvo I, Weilland L, Pratschke K. Traumatic myocardial laceration as a result of suspected cranial migration of a sewing needle from the stomach of a dog. Aust Vet J 2011; 89: 444446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Hunt GB, Bellinger CR, Allan GS, et al. Suspected cranial migration of two sewing needles from the stomach of a dog. Vet Rec 1991; 128: 329330.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Smith KR. Acquired caudal vena cava occlusion and high protein ascites in a dog. J Small Anim Pract 1994; 35: 261265.

  • 7. Houston DM, Eaglesome H. Unusual case of foreign body—induced struvite urolithiasis in a dog. Can Vet J 1999; 40: 125126.

  • 8. Billen F, Day MJ, Clercx C. Diagnosis of pharyngeal disorders in dogs: a retrospective study of 67 cases. J Small Anim Pract 2006; 47: 122129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Basher AWP, Fowler JD. Conservative versus surgical management of gastrointestinal linear foreign bodies in the cat. Vet Surg 1987; 16: 135138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Felts JF, Fox PR, Burk RL. Thread and sewing needles as gastrointestinal foreign bodies in the cat: a review of 64 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984; 184: 5659.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Runge J, Culp W. Surgical treatment of esophageal disease. In: Monnet E, ed. Small animal soft tissue surgery. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013; 304317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Killen DA, Pridgen WR. Tolerance of the dog to esophageal perforation. J Surg Res 1961; 1: 315317.

  • 13. 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: 649654.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Parker NR, Walter PA, Gay J. Diagnosis of surgical management of esophageal perforation. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1989; 25: 587594.

  • 15. Borgström S, Lundh B. Healing of esophageal anastomosis: animal experiments. Ann Surg 1959; 150: 142148.

  • 16. Ryan WW, Greene RW. The conservative management of esophageal foreign bodies and their complications: a review of 66 cases in dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1975; 11: 243249.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Moberly AC, Fritsch MH, Mosier KM. Management of swordswallower injuries. J Laryngol Otol 2011; 125: 217219.

  • 18. Thompson HC, Cortes Y, Gannon K, et al. Esophageal foreign bodies in dogs: 34 cases (2004)2009). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2012; 22: 253261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Cariou MPL, Lipscomb VJ. Successful surgical management of a perforating oesophageal foreign body in a cat. J Feline Med Surg 2011; 13: 5055.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. King CE, Arnold LM, Church JG. The physiological role of the intestinal mucosal movements. Am J Physiol 1922; 61: 8084.

  • 21. Guilford WG, Strombeck DR. Intestinal obstruction, pseudoobstruction, and foreign bodies. In: Guilford WG, Center SA, Strombeck DR, et al, eds. Strombeck's small animal gastroenterology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1996; 487502.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Tams TR, Spector DJ. Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies. In: Tams TR, Rawlings CA, eds. Small animal endoscopy. 3rd ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2011; 245263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Strombeck DR. Obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract. In: Strombeck DR, ed. Small animal gastroenterology. Davis, Calif: Stonegate Publishing Co, 1979; 291300.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Brown DC. Small intestine. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA, eds. Veterinary surgery small animal. St Louis: Elsevier, 2012; 15131541.

  • 25. Feng QZ, Wang J, Sun H. A sewing needle in liver: a case report and review of the literature. Cases J 2009; 2: 65206523.

  • 26. Hashmonai M, Kaufman T, Schramek A. Silent perforations of the stomach and duodenum by needles. Arch Surg 1978; 113: 14061409.

Advertisement

Sewing needle foreign body ingestion in dogs and cats: 65 cases (2000–2012)

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 3 Department of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Abstract

Objective—To characterize clinical signs, diagnostic test results, foreign body location, treatment, and outcome for dogs and cats with sewing needle foreign bodies.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—65 dogs and cats with sewing needle foreign bodies.

Procedures—Medical records of 27 dogs and 38 cats examined because of sewing needle foreign bodies from January 2000 to February 2012 were reviewed for signalment, medical history, physical examination findings, diagnostic test results, interval from witnessed exposure and radiographic imaging to definitive treatment, definitive treatment, sewing needle location, complications, and outcome.

Results—7 (10.8%) animals had sewing needles in extragastrointestinal locations that were not causing clinical signs. The remaining 58 (89.2%) animals had known sewing needle exposure or acute clinical signs associated with ingestion. The esophageal and gastric regions were the most common location for a sewing needle (10/21 [47.6%] dogs; 19/37 [51.4%] cats), followed by the oropharynx (7/21 [33.3%] dogs; 11/37 [29.7%] cats) and small and large intestines (4/21 [19.0%] dogs; 7/37 [18.9%] cats). Gastrointestinal perforation was detected in 10 of 58 (17.2%) animals (5/21 [23.8%] dogs; 5/37 [13.5%] cats). Sewing needles in the esophagus and stomach were successfully removed endoscopically in 8 of 9 dogs and 18 of 19 cats. Survival rate was 98.1% (51/52) for animals receiving definitive treatment.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Endoscopic removal of ingested sewing needles was highly successful and should be recommended to prevent gastrointestinal tract perforation and associated morbidity. Prognosis for dogs and cats receiving definitive treatment for sewing needle foreign body ingestion was excellent.

Abstract

Objective—To characterize clinical signs, diagnostic test results, foreign body location, treatment, and outcome for dogs and cats with sewing needle foreign bodies.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—65 dogs and cats with sewing needle foreign bodies.

Procedures—Medical records of 27 dogs and 38 cats examined because of sewing needle foreign bodies from January 2000 to February 2012 were reviewed for signalment, medical history, physical examination findings, diagnostic test results, interval from witnessed exposure and radiographic imaging to definitive treatment, definitive treatment, sewing needle location, complications, and outcome.

Results—7 (10.8%) animals had sewing needles in extragastrointestinal locations that were not causing clinical signs. The remaining 58 (89.2%) animals had known sewing needle exposure or acute clinical signs associated with ingestion. The esophageal and gastric regions were the most common location for a sewing needle (10/21 [47.6%] dogs; 19/37 [51.4%] cats), followed by the oropharynx (7/21 [33.3%] dogs; 11/37 [29.7%] cats) and small and large intestines (4/21 [19.0%] dogs; 7/37 [18.9%] cats). Gastrointestinal perforation was detected in 10 of 58 (17.2%) animals (5/21 [23.8%] dogs; 5/37 [13.5%] cats). Sewing needles in the esophagus and stomach were successfully removed endoscopically in 8 of 9 dogs and 18 of 19 cats. Survival rate was 98.1% (51/52) for animals receiving definitive treatment.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Endoscopic removal of ingested sewing needles was highly successful and should be recommended to prevent gastrointestinal tract perforation and associated morbidity. Prognosis for dogs and cats receiving definitive treatment for sewing needle foreign body ingestion was excellent.

Contributor Notes

Presented in abstract form at the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Conference, San Antonio, Tex, September 2012.

Address correspondence to Dr. Pratt (chappratt06@gmail.com).