Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Radiologic-assisted gastropexy techniques in large breed dogs outcomes
By Balsa, Ingrid M et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2016·Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Efficacy of Two Radiologic-Assisted Prophylactic Gastropexy Techniques.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Fourteen large and giant breed dogs underwent a surgical procedure to prevent a serious condition called gastric torsion (bloat). The dogs were divided into two groups: one group had a less invasive technique that did not work, while the other group had a more traditional surgery that successfully secured the stomach in place. The second group showed good results, with all dogs having their stomachs properly positioned and functioning well eight weeks after the surgery. This suggests that the traditional method is a reliable option for preventing bloat in at-risk dog breeds.
People also search for: dog bloat prevention surgery · gastric torsion in large dogs · gastropexy procedure for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and clinical outcome of prophylactic percutaneous radiologic-assisted gastropexy (PRG) and radiologic-assisted incisional gastropexy (RIG) in client-owned dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. ANIMALS: Fourteen client-owned, large, and giant breed dogs. METHODS: Four dogs underwent PRG with fluoroscopic guidance to place 2 T-fasteners into the pyloric antrum and secure it to the right body wall. Ten dogs underwent RIG, which was a modification of PRG. For RIG, the T-fasteners were first used to approximate the pyloric antrum and body wall, then a full thickness incision through the body wall was made and the pyloric antrum was sutured to the internal abdominal wall. The duration and complications of each procedure were recorded. The gastropexy was assessed by abdominal ultrasound at day 1, week 2, and week 8 postoperative and by barium gastrogram at week 8 postoperative. RESULTS: No dogs undergoing PRG had a gastropexy present at week 2. All dogs undergoing RIG had ultrasonographic evidence of gastropexy at day 1, week 2, and week 8 postoperative. Gastrograms in 9/9 dogs were consistent with an intact gastropexy, appropriate gastric positioning and appropriate gastric emptying began. No major complications were noted. CONCLUSION: The PRG was unsatisfactory and did not result in a permanent gastropexy. The RIG was safe and created a gastropexy that remained intact at 8 weeks postoperative. The RIG should be considered as a minimally invasive option for prophylactic gastropexy in dogs of at-risk breeds.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27007302/