PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

How often dogs get infections after limb amputation

By Billas, Alison R et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2022·Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection following canine limb amputation.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of dogs that underwent limb amputation had a 12.5% chance of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) afterward. Factors that increased the risk included using a specific tool called a bipolar vessel sealing device during surgery, having a surgical site that wasn't classified as clean, and the reason for the amputation being due to a bacterial infection or traumatic injury. To reduce the risk of SSI, it may be better to use other methods like electrosurgery or sharp transection instead of the bipolar device. Overall, careful surgical techniques can help improve recovery outcomes for dogs after limb amputation.

People also search for: dog limb amputation infection · canine surgical site infection prevention · risks of dog surgery · bipolar vessel sealing device in dogs

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) following canine thoracic and pelvic limb amputations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter study. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 248). METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables including indication for amputation, amputation type, method of muscle transection, duration of surgery and anesthesia, and wound classification. Follow up was ≥30 days or until SSI development. Logistic regression and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare SSI incidence to variables of interest. RESULTS: The incidence of SSI was 12.5% for all procedures and 10.9% for clean procedures. Factors increasing odds of SSI were muscle transection with a bipolar vessel sealing device (P = .023 for all procedures, P = .025 for clean procedures), procedure classified as other than clean (P = .003), and indication for amputation of bacterial infection (P = .041) or traumatic injury (P = .003) compared to neoplasia. CONCLUSION: Use of bipolar vessel sealing devices for muscle transection increased the odds of developing an SSI whereas use of electrosurgery and/or sharp transection did not. Dogs with surgical sites that were other than clean, or with bacterial infection and/or traumatic injury were also at increased odds of SSI. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Use of electrosurgery or sharp transection for muscle transection should be considered rather than use of bipolar vessel sealing devices to decrease odds of SSI in dogs undergoing limb amputation. Further studies across a variety of procedures are needed to validate these findings given the increasing popularity of these devices in veterinary medicine.

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/35006627/