Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Jejunostomy tube feeding after dog abdominal surgery outcomes
By Tsuruta, Kaoru et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2016·Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Evaluation of jejunostomy tube feeding after abdominal surgery in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 64 dogs underwent abdominal surgery and had a feeding tube placed in their intestines to help them eat after the procedure. Most of the dogs (81%) survived, and many started eating on their own within a day of surgery, which helped their recovery. While some dogs experienced mild gastrointestinal issues, none of the complications were serious. The study found that using this feeding method did not prevent dogs from eating normally, and overall, it was a safe option for helping dogs recover after surgery.
People also search for: dog abdominal surgery recovery · jejunostomy tube feeding in dogs · post-surgery feeding for dogs · dog gastrointestinal issues after surgery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of postoperative intrajejunal feeding and to evaluate the association of preoperative plasma albumin concentrations with intrajejunal feeding-related complications and clinical outcome. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: University veterinary teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Sixty-four dogs. INTERVENTIONS: Jejunostomy tube placement during abdominal surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Most dogs (81%) survived. The median intrajejunal feeding period was 2.1 days (range: 1-16 days; n = 64). Only 3 (5%) dogs received their estimated resting energy requirement by intrajejunal feeding. Of dogs that were fed intrajejunally (58 out of 64), most (55 out of 58) received intrajejunal feeding within 24 hours after surgery. Energy provision via the jejunal feeding tube did not differ between dogs with and without complications (P = 0.592), or between nonsurvivors and survivors (P = 0.298). Thirty-five dogs ate voluntarily concurrently with intrajejunal feeding. Of dogs that ate voluntarily concurrently with intrajejunal feeding for ≤50% of the postoperative period, most (74%) survived to discharge. Complications were seen in 22% of dogs, and none were life-threatening; gastrointestinal signs were most common. There was no difference in preoperative plasma albumin concentration between dogs with and without complications (P = 0.432) and between nonsurvivors and survivors (P = 0.727). Fecal score was not significantly different between the 2 liquid diets studied (FormulaV Enteral Care HLP and CliniCare Canine/Feline; P = 0.927). CONCLUSIONS: A jejunostomy tube placed during abdominal surgery was likely to be used at the study institution. Few complications were seen and none were life-threatening. Intrajejunal feeding was initiated early after surgery and did not interfere with the initiation of voluntary oral intake. Fecal scores were high and were useful for an objective assessment of fecal consistency in dogs with intrajejunal feeding.
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/27232697/