Gastroesophageal Foreign Bodies in Dogs - Endoscopy and Surgical Removal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22456/1679-9216.129590Resumo
Background: Gastroesophageal foreign bodies (GFD) are commonly diagnosed in dogs and are considered an endoscopic emergency that, although not resulting in serious clinical sequelae or mortality, can compromise the health and well-being of the patient. The use of the digestive endoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of GFD can be a valuable and viable alternative. There are cases of GFD in dogs for which the indicated treatment is surgery, which can be performed using minimally invasive or conventional techniques, associated or not with flexible endoscopy. The objective of this work is to describe 16 cases of GFD removal in dogs demonstrating the efficiency of upper digestive endoscopy.
Cases: Of the 16 GFD cases, 63% (10/16) were male and 37% (6/16) female. Most aged under 1 year (63%), puppies (5/16) and juveniles (5/16). The patient with the lowest body weight was a miniature pinscher weighing 0.8 kg (Case 14) and the heaviest was an American Pit Bull Terrier weighing 28 kg (Case 11), the mean body weight of patients diagnosed with GFD was 10.2 ± 6.7 kg. Small and medium breeds were more affected, 44.7% (7/16) and 44.7% (7/16), respectively, and large breeds (Golden Retrievier and Bull Terrier), from cases 1 and 4, the least affected, 12.6% (2/16) of the cases. The 16 patients underwent a 12 h food fast and a 4 h water fast, as gastrointestinal emptying in these cases of GFD can be influenced by these foreign bodies. All underwent general inhalation anesthesia with monitoring of physiological parameters (temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure) before, during and after EGD, being positioned in left lateral decubitus. The 16 canine patients with suspected GFD underwent EGD for diagnostic confirmation and removal of foreign bodies. Five esophageal FB were diagnosed, 31% (5/16), and 11 gastric FB, 69% (11/16). The most frequently diagnosed foreign bodies were bone and tissue, 37.5% (6/16) and 31% (5/16). Other foreign bodies were materials such as plastics, metals, rubber, foam and stone. Of the 16 cases of GFD, EGD efficiently treated 88% (14/16) without the need for hospitalization, with only supportive treatment for the remission of complications caused by the presence of foreign bodies in the gastroesophageal tract. The main complications related to the presence of GFD were esophagitis in 25% (4/16) of cases, gastritis in 38% (6/16) and both alterations in 13% (2/16).
Discussion: In this work, we can observe that more than a third of the clinical cases of treated dogs were diagnosed with GFD, demonstrating that these cases are common in the veterinary clinic. Most of these animals were males less than 1 year old. The improvement of learning in this category can lead these animals to exacerbated oral exploration of new objects. Most FBs were found in the stomach because they were of adequate size, consistency and shape for their passage through the esophagus, whereas esophageal FBs were all bone fragments of rigid consistency with diameters and sizes larger than the esophageal lumen. The interval between the ingestion of the object and the veterinary care can be decisive for the removal of the FB in the esophagus or stomach. Most gastric FBs removed were fabrics and plastics, flexible objects that can pass through the esophageal lumen more easily. Removal of GFD by endoscopy was performed with a high success rate, with only 2 cases being resolved by esophagostomy and gastrotomy. Flexible endoscopy proved to be an efficient technique for removing treated GFD, which can help remove FB during esophagotomy and be associated with rigid endoscopy. Patients recovered quickly and without complications, but it is important to emphasize that inadequate maneuvers and conducts can determine other outcomes. The use of endoscopy for GFD removal needs to be more popularized, as it can ensure better results for dogs treated with GFD.
Keywords: digestive tract, endoscopic extraction, flexible endoscopy, ingested object, rigid endoscopy.
Downloads
Referências
Barash N.R., Lashnits E., Kern Z.T., Tolbert M.K. & Lunn K.F. 2022. Outcomes of esophageal and gastric bone foreign bodies in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 36(2): 500-507. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.16383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.16383
Binvel M., Poujol L., Peyron C., Dunie-Merigot A. & Bernardin F. 2017. Endoscopic and surgical removal of oesophageal and gastric fishhook foreign bodies in 33 animals. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 59(1): 45-49. DOI:10.1111/jsap.12794 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12794
Brisson B.A., Wainberg S.H., Malek S., Reabel S., Defarges A. & Sears W.C. 2018. Risk factors and prognostic indicators for surgical outcome of dogs with esophageal foreign body obstructions. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 252(3): 301-308. DOI:10.2460/javma.252.3.301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.252.3.301
Bongard A.B., Furrow E. & Granick J.L. 2019. Retrospective evaluation of factors associated with degree of esophagitis, treatment, and outcomes in dogs presenting with esophageal foreign bodies (2004–2014): 114 cases. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. 29(5): 528-534. DOI: 10.1111/vec.12875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12875
Burton A.G., Talbot C.T. & Kent M.S. 2017. Risk Factors for Death in Dogs Treated for Esophageal Foreign Body Obstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 222 Cases (1998-2017). Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 31(6): 1686-1690. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.14849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.14849
Bray E.E., Gruen M.E., Gnanadesikan G.E., Horschler D.J., Levy K.M., Kennedy B.S., Hare B.A. & MacLean E.L. 2020. Cognitive characteristics of 8- to 10-week-old assistance dog puppies. Animal Behaviour. 166: 193-206. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.05.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.05.019
Demars C., Boland L. & Minier K. 2022. Surgical removal of intestinal foreign bodies using a laparotomy-assisted endoscopic approach in dogs and cats and comparison with enterotomy. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 1-8. DOI: 10.1111/jsap.13550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13550
Deroy C., Corcuff J.B., Billen F. & Hamaide A. 2015. Removal of oesophageal foreign bodies: comparison between oesophagoscopy and oesophagotomy in 39 dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 56(10): 613-617. DOI:10.1111/jsap.12386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12386
Di Palma C., Pasolini M.P., Navas L., Campanile A., Lamagna F., Fatone G., Micieli F., Esposito C., Donnarumma D., Uccello V. & Lamagna B. 2022. Endoscopic and surgical removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies in dogs: an analysis of 72 cases. Animals. 12(11): 1376. DOI:10.3390/ani12111376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111376
Gibson E., Culp W., Mayhew P., Runge J.J., Peterson L.C., Balsa I.M. & Kim S.Y. 2020. Laparoscopic‐assisted gastrotomy for foreign body retrieval in four dogs. Veterinary Record Case Reports. 8(2): e000966. DOI:10.1136/vetreccr-2019-000966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/vetreccr-2019-000966
Gonçalves S.R.F., Barretto M.L.M., Rodrigues E.M.S., Rodrigues E.M.S., Bernardi J.C.M., Feitoza F.M.G., Silva S.C.G. & Oliveira A.A.F. 2019. Esophageal Perforation Associated with a Foreign Body in a Dog. Acta Scientiae Veterinary. 47: 411. DOI: 10.22456/1679-9216.93608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22456/1679-9216.93608
Grobman M. 2021. Aerodigestive Disease in Dogs. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 51(1): 17-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.09.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.09.003
Harvey N.D. 2021. How Old Is My Dog? Identification of Rational Age Groupings in Pet Dogs Based Upon Normative Age-Linked Processes. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 8: 643085. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.643085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.643085
Hobday M.M., Pachtinger G.E., Drobatz K.J. & Syring R.S. 2014. Linear versus non-linear gastrointestinal foreign bodies in 499 dogs: clinical presentation, management and short-term outcome. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 55(11): 560-565. DOI:10.1111/jsap.12271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12271
Hoffman C.L., Mastrocco A. & Drobatz K.J. 2022. Retrospective evaluation of gastrointestinal foreign bodies and presurgical predictors for enterectomy versus enterotomy in dogs (2013-2016): 82 cases. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. 32(1): 98-105. DOI: 10.1111/vec.13139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.13139
Husnik R. & Gaschen F. 2021. Gastric Motility Disorders in Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 51(1): 43-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.09.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.09.002
Kan T., Hess R.S. & Clarke D.L. 2022. Clinical findings and patient outcomes following surgical treatment of chronic gastrointestinal foreign body obstructions in dogs and cats: 72 cases (2010-2020). Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research. 86(4): 311-315.
Masson S., Guitaut N., Medam T. & Béata C. 2021. Link between Foreign Body Ingestion and Behavioural Disorder in Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 45: 25-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.04.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2021.04.001
Mila H., Grellet A., Feugier A. & Chastant-Maillard S. 2015. Differential impact of birth weight and early growth on neonatal mortality in puppies. Journal of Animal Science. 93(9): 4436-4442. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2015-8971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-8971
Miles S., Gaschen L., Presley T., Liu C. & Granger L.A. 2021. Influence of repeat abdominal radiographs on the resolution of mechanical obstruction and gastrointestinal foreign material in dogs and cats. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound. 62(3): 282-288. DOI:10.1111/vru.12953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12953
Nutt L.K., Webb J.A., Prosser K.J. & Defarges A. 2014. Management of dogs and cats with endotracheal tube tracheal foreign bodies. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 55(6): 565-568.
Otomo A., Singh A., Valverde A., Beaufrere H., Mrotz V., Kilkenny J. & Linden A.Z. 2019. Comparison of outcome in dogs undergoing single‐incision laparoscopic‐assisted intestinal surgery and open laparotomy for simple small intestinal foreign body removal. Veterinary Surgery. Veterinary Surgery. 48(S1): 83-90. DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13131
Perez J.C., Di Bella A. & Juvet F. 2022. Chronic oesophagitis, oesophageal laceration and gastritis in a Dalmatian after ingestion of medium-density fibreboard. Veterinary Record Case Reports. 10(4): e447. DOI: 10.1002/vrc2.447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vrc2.447
Poggiani F.M., Duarte R.P.C., Santana M.I.S. & Galera P.D. 2020. Endoscopic Removal of Foreign Body in Upper Gastrointestinal Tract in Dogs: Success Rate and Complications. Acta Scientiae Veterinary. 48: 1735. DOI:10.22456/1679-9216.100574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22456/1679-9216.100574
Power A.M., Diamond D.W. & Puetthoff C. 2021. Laparotomy-assisted transoral foreign body retrieval in small animals: 10 cases (2018-2020). Topics in Companion Animal Medicine. 42: 100504. DOI:10.1016/j.tcam.2020.100504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcam.2020.100504
Pfau P.R. 2014. Removal and management of esophageal foreign bodies. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 16(1): 32-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.tgie.2013.10.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tgie.2013.10.004
Rahmani V., Spillmann T., Halttunen J., Syrjä P. & Ruohoniemi M. 2022. Diagnostic value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and therapeutic value of endoscopic sphincterotomy in dogs with suspected hepatobiliary disorders. BMC Veterinary Research. 18(1): 146. DOI:10.1186/s12917-022-03241-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03241-4
Rimer D., Lerman O., Klainbart S. & Nivy R. 2020. Lethal acute hemorrhage from an aortoesophageal fistula following endoscopy‐assisted esophageal foreign body removal in a dog. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. 30(5): 587-591. DOI:10.1111/vec.12998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12998
Robinson W., Shales C. & White R.N. 2014. The use of rigid endoscopy in the management of acute oropharyngeal stick injuries. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 55(12): 609-614. DOI:10.1111/jsap.12282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12282
Sterman A.A., Mankin K.M.T., Ham K.M. & Cook A.K. 2018. Likelihood and outcome of esophageal perforation secondary to esophageal foreign body in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 253(8): 1053-1056. DOI:10.2460/javma.253.8.1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.253.8.1053
Teh H., Winters L., James F., Irwin P., Beck C. & Mansfield C. 2018. Medical management of esophageal perforation secondary to esophageal foreign bodies in 5 dogs. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. 28(5): 464-468. DOI:10.1111/vec.12757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12757
Tyrrell D. & Beck C. 2006. Survey of the use of radiography vs. ultrasonography in the investigation of gastrointestinal foreign bodies in small animals. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound. 47(4): 404-408. DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8261.2006.00160.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2006.00160.x
Wood A.N. & Gallagher A.E. 2021. Survey of Instruments and Techniques for Endoscopic Retrieval of Esophageal and Gastric Foreign Bodies in Cats and Dogs. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine. 45: 100555. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcam.2021.100555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcam.2021.100555
Arquivos adicionais
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2023 Marcella Pinheiro Souto, Priscila dos Santos Ribas, Francisco Décio Oliveira Monteiro, Amanda Corrêa da Silva, João Pedro Monteiro Barroso, Heytor Jales Gurgel, Luisa Pucci Bueno Borges, Pedro Paulo Maia Teixeira

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides open access to all of its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Such access is associated with increased readership and increased citation of an author's work. For more information on this approach, see the Public Knowledge Project and Directory of Open Access Journals.
We define open access journals as journals that use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. From the BOAI definition of "open access" we take the right of users to "read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles" as mandatory for a journal to be included in the directory.
La Red y Portal Iberoamericano de Revistas Científicas de Veterinaria de Libre Acceso reúne a las principales publicaciones científicas editadas en España, Portugal, Latino América y otros países del ámbito latino