Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Subcutaneous ureteral bypass device use in cats with blocked ureters
By Wuillemin, Florian et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2021·Department of Clinical Sciences, Canada·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Subcutaneous ureteral bypass device placement in 81 cats with benign ureteral obstruction (2013-2018).
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
An 8-year-old cat with a blocked ureter was treated with a subcutaneous ureteral bypass device to help relieve the obstruction. After the procedure, most cats (94%) were able to go home, and their kidney function improved significantly. However, some cats experienced complications, including infections and device kinks, which sometimes required additional surgery. Overall, more than half of the cats were still alive two years later, suggesting that this treatment can be effective for cats with benign ureteral obstructions.
People also search for: cat ureter blockage treatment · subcutaneous ureteral bypass device for cats · cat kidney function improvement after surgery
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benign ureteral obstructions (BUOs) present a therapeutic challenge in cats. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome and complications associated with placement of subcutaneous ureteral bypass (SUB) device in cats. ANIMALS: Eighty-one client-owned cats (117 kidneys) with BUO treated by placement of a SUB. METHODS: Retrospective study. Medical records of cats with BUO and treated by SUB device placement between 2013 and 2018 were reviewed. Outcome and complications were documented. RESULTS: Hospital discharge rate was 94% (76/81). Serum creatinine on admission and at the time of discharge was 5.3 mg/dL (range, 1.2 to >15 mg/dL) and 2.1 mg/dL (range, 1.1-12.5 mg/dL), respectively. Luminal obstructions were documented in 17% (18/109) of the SUB devices of 16 cats discharged from the hospital. Infection was documented in 26% (20/76) of discharged cats. Kink of the device was documented in 10% (12/117) of devices. Time to luminal obstruction and kink were 204 days (range, 21-1678 days) and 58 days (range, 2-601 days), respectively. Fourteen of 81 (17%) cats required a revision surgery in order to restore patency of the device. At the time of writing, 53% (43/81) of cats were alive, with a mean survival time of 821 days (range, 1-2170 days) after surgery. Of those that died, 52% (20/38) died of urinary related causes. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: This study suggests that SUB device placement is associated with good outcomes and could be considered for the treatment of BUO in cats.
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/34894007/