Endoscopic and Surgical Removal of Gastrointestinal Foreign Bodies in Dogs: An Analysis of 72 Cases

Abstract

In emergency veterinary practice, gastrointestinal foreign body (GFB) removal is a common procedure that is performed with different techniques, such as endoscopy or surgery. The aims of this retrospective, multicentre, clinical study were to report the common locations and types of objects recovered and to investigate clinical factors and outcomes in dogs after surgical or endoscopic treatment for GFB removal. Records of dogs with a GFB diagnosis referred to the Teaching Veterinary Hospital or treated in three different veterinary hospitals from September 2017 to September 2019 were examined. The data obtained from each case included breed, age, clinical signs at presentation, duration of clinical signs, type and location of the GFB, treatment, length of hospitalisation and outcome. Seventy-two dogs were enrolled in the study. There were 42 males (58%) and 30 females (42%). The median age was 36 months (range: 3 months to 8 years). Endoscopic retrieval was performed in 56% of GFBs (located in the stomach or duodenum), whereas 44% of dogs underwent surgery. The type of FB detected varied greatly: kid toy (14%), metallic object/coin (13%), cloth (13%), sock (8%), ball (8%), plastic material (8%), peach stone (7%), fishhook (6%), sewing needle (4%), hair tie (4%), pacifier (3%), plant materials (3%) and others (9%). Moreover, the FBs were classified as sharp (13%, n = 9), pointed (33%, n = 24), blunt (26%, n = 19), or linear (28%, n = 20). In this study, 68% of FBs were localised in the stomach, 25% in the intestinal tract (50% duodenum, 28% jejunum, and 22% ileum), and 7% in both the stomach and small intestine. The type of GFB was not significantly associated with age, site or breed. There was a significant association between the type of GFB and sex: if the dog was male, there was a 38% probability of ingesting linear GFBs. The dog survival rate was 100% in cases treated by gastric endoscopic or surgical removal, 94% in cases treated with enterotomy and 33% in cases in which enterectomy was necessary. Enterectomy and multiple surgical sites were associated with a poor outcome. The presence of vomiting for more than 24 h was significantly associated with death.

Evaluating Disease Patterns of Military Working Dogs in the Republic of Korea: A Retrospective Study

“…Various foreign objects have been ingested by dogs in many studies [ 36 , 38 , 48 ]. In this study, leather collars or leashes were the most common FB among the examined cases, followed by metallic objects, towels or gloves, and plastic objects, which could be easily found near the cages of MWDs.…”

“…Foreign objects were found most commonly in the stomach and were removed mainly by endoscopy. In a previous study, the endoscopic removal of gastric FB was associated with a high success rate [ 48 ]. In one case in this study, a long leather leash acted as a linear FB and caused intussusception of the small intestine, which was removed using two enterotomies.…”

Custo Da Suplementação De Bovinos Nelore Com Caroço De Açaí No Período De Transição Águas-Seca

“…Na rotina veterinária a ingestão de corpos estranhos é comum pelos cães, os sinais clínicos dependem do formato, da composição e da localização do objeto dentro do trato gastrointestinal, além disso os distúrbios metabólicos induzidos pelo vomito e pela diarreia aumentam os riscos de óbito. A avaliação comportamental deve ser realizada em animais que possuem histórico recorrente de ingestão de objetos não comestíveis (PALMA et al, 2022).…”

“…Os achados laboratoriais são úteis para descartar outras causas dos sinais clínicos, fornecendo informações sobre anemia, desidratação, inflamação, infecção e estado geral de saúde do paciente(CARMO et al, 2020). faringe até o esfíncter anal externo sendo formado por gânglios, células gliais, plexo miontérico, plexo submucoso e neurônios entéricos distribuídos por todo o sistema digestório(ORIÁ et al, 2016).Durante a anamnese deve-se questionar o tutor sobre o acesso e disponibilidade de ingestão de corpo estranho de diferentes naturezas, como bolas de plástico, caroços de frutas, ossos, meias, pedras, pedaço de madeira, anzol, agulha, saco de plástico, pano, elástico de cabelo, grampos, clipes, objetos lineares, tampa de caneta, chupeta ou qualquer outro objeto que possa obstruir parcialmente ou completamente o fluxo gastrointestinal(PALMA et al, 2022). De acordo com o exame físico é estabelecido uma lista de diagnósticos diferenciais, como gastroenterite infecciosa, pancreatite, hepatopatias, torção vólvulo-gástrica, peritonite, úlcera gastroduodenal, intussuscepção intestinal, neoplasias e doenças renais(BOJRAB et al, 2014) (REECE, 2017)…”

Endoscopic Retrieval of Esophageal and Gastric Foreign Bodies in Cats and Dogs: A Retrospective Study of 92 Cases

“…Esophageal FBs are mostly reported in small dogs because of the size of their esophagus, and the obstruction is usually localized where natural narrowing of the organ occurs (thoracic inlet, heart base, and caudal esophageal region) [ 2 ]. Bone or cartilage material, fishhooks, balls, toys, needles, hair bands, and hairballs are frequently reported as esophageal and gastrointestinal FBs in small animals [ 3 ]. The severity of the clinical signs depends on several factors such as localization (esophageal, gastric, or duodenal), size of FBs and size of the animal, type of FBs (if traumatic or not for gastrointestinal mucosa), and duration of obstruction [ 1 , 2 ].…”