Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Esophageal stents to treat stubborn esophagus narrowing in dogs
By Lam, N et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2013·The Animal Medical Center, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Esophageal stenting for treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of nine dogs with severe swallowing difficulties due to recurring benign esophageal strictures were treated with esophageal stents to help keep their esophagus open. While the stents initially improved their ability to swallow, many dogs faced complications like nausea, vomiting, and even the return of their strictures. Unfortunately, some dogs required further interventions, and four had to be euthanized due to serious issues related to the stents. Overall, while the stenting procedure showed promise, it came with significant risks that need careful monitoring.
People also search for: dog swallowing problems treatment · esophageal stent for dogs · dog vomiting after stent placement · what to do for dog with esophageal stricture
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benign esophageal strictures can recur despite multiple dilatation procedures and palliative management can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and determine the outcome of esophageal stenting for treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES) in dogs. ANIMALS: Nine dogs with RBES. METHODS: Retrospective review of records for dogs with RBES. Indwelling intraluminal esophageal stents were placed transorally with endoscopy, fluoroscopic guidance, or both. Follow-up information was obtained via medical record or telephone interview. RESULTS: Nine dogs had 10 stents placed including biodegradable stents (BDS) (6/10), self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) (3/10), and a self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) (1/10). All dogs had short-term improved dysphagia. Complications included ptyalism, apparent nausea, gagging, vomiting, or regurgitation (8/9), confirmed recurrence of stricture (6/9), stent migration (3/9), stent shortening (1/9), megaesophagus (1/9), incisional infection (1/9), and tracheal-esophageal fistula (1/9). Eight of 9 dogs required intervention because of the complications of which 4 of 8 dogs were eventually euthanized because of stent-related issues. One dog was lost to follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Findings suggest that esophageal stent placement was safe and technically effective, but unpredictably tolerated in dogs with RBES. If a stent is placed, dogs should be monitored carefully for stent migration, dissolution of absorbable stents, and recurrence of strictures.
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/23869412/