Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Electrical stimulation implant helps dogs with slow constipation pass
By Chen, Shuo et al.·Published in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society·2016·Department of Gastroenterology, Japan·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Implantable Colonic Electrical Stimulation Improves Gastrointestinal Transit and Defecation in a Canine Constipation Model.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with slow transit constipation (STC) had electrodes implanted in their colons to test a new treatment called colonic electrical stimulation (CES). This method significantly improved how quickly food moved through their intestines and increased how often they were able to have bowel movements, leading to better stool consistency. The dogs showed noticeable improvements compared to those who did not receive the CES treatment. This approach could be a promising option for dogs suffering from constipation issues.
People also search for: dog constipation treatment · colonic electrical stimulation for dogs · improving dog bowel movements
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Colonic electrical stimulation (CES) may have a therapeutic potential for slow transit constipation (STC). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of implantable CES on gastrointestinal transit and defecation, and explore its mechanisms in a canine STC model. METHODS: Two pairs of electrodes were implanted in each of the proximal colon and rectosigmoid junction (RSJ). Parameters were individualized according to the symptoms of the stimulated dogs. In the STC model, gastrointestinal transit and defecation were assessed to evaluate the effects of double-site CES, and of double-site CES combined with atropine or N-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA) in a crossover design. RESULTS: Individualized parameters varied among the animals. The CES significantly shortened gastrointestinal transit time (GITT) and colonic transit time (CTT) compared with sham CES (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Compared with sham CES, the CES also exhibited significantly higher stool frequency and stool consistency score (p = 0.018 and p = 0.001, respectively). Co-treatment with atropine or L-NNA blocked the effects of CES on GITT, CTT, and stool consistency. The stool frequency increased by CES, however, only reduced by co-treatment with L-NNA. CONCLUSIONS: This double-site implantable CES can improve the gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine STC model, possibly by activating the cholinergic and nitrergic pathways. The CES mode used in this study may be proven feasible in treating STC.
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/26573699/