Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Urinary incontinence in 27 dogs treated with artificial urethral
By Reeves, Lauren et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2013·Department of Veterinary Clinical 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Outcome after placement of an artificial urethral sphincter in 27 dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 27 dogs with urinary incontinence, which means they were leaking urine, underwent surgery to have an adjustable artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implanted. Most of these dogs had not responded to other treatments before the surgery. After the procedure, the majority of owners reported significant improvement in their pets' ability to hold urine, with many dogs achieving near-complete continence. While most dogs did well, a couple experienced partial urethral obstruction later on, which might require further treatment. Overall, the AUS was a successful option for helping dogs regain control over their bladder.
People also search for: dog urinary incontinence treatment · artificial urethral sphincter for dogs · why is my dog leaking urine
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an adjustable artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) in a population of dogs with acquired or congenital urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 27) with naturally occurring urinary incontinence. METHODS: Medical records (January 2009-July 2011) of dogs that had AUS implantation for treatment of urinary incontinence were reviewed and owners were interviewed by telephone to assess outcome. Continence was scored using a previously established analogue scale, with 1 representing constant leakage and 10 representing complete continence. RESULTS: Twenty-four female and 3 male dogs had AUS implantation. Causes of incontinence included urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence (n = 18), continued incontinence after ectopic ureter repair (6), and pelvic bladder (3). Medical therapy was unsuccessful in 25 dogs before AUS implantation. Surgery was performed without major complications in 25 dogs; 2 developed partial urethral obstruction after 5 and 9 months. Median (interquartile range) follow-up for the other 25 dogs was 12.5 (6-19) months. Continence scores were significantly improved (P < .0001) between the preoperative period (2 [1-4]) and last follow-up (9 [8-10]). Overall, 22 owners described themselves as very satisfied, 2 as satisfied, and 3 as unsatisfied. CONCLUSIONS: AUS implantation was successful in restoring continence in male and female dogs with both congenital and acquired urinary incontinence. Dogs that develop partial urethral obstruction may require AUS removal.
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/23163231/