Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Ultrasound helps find lymph nodes for removal in dogs and cats
By Rossanese, Matteo et al.·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2021·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Ultrasound-guided placement of an anchor wire or injection of methylene blue to aid in the intraoperative localization and excision of peripheral lymph nodes in dogs and cats.
Plain-English summary
A group of 125 dogs and 10 cats underwent surgery to remove lymph nodes, and researchers tested two methods to help locate these nodes during the procedure. One method involved placing an anchor wire, while the other used an injection of methylene blue dye. The results showed that using the anchor wire led to a higher success rate of 94% in removing the lymph nodes, compared to 87% with the dye and 72% without any assistance. Both techniques made the surgery quicker and were effective for finding smaller or hard-to-feel lymph nodes.
People also search for: dog lymph node surgery success · cat lymphadenectomy techniques · methylene blue injection for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ultrasound-guided placement of an anchor wire (AW) or injection of methylene blue (MB) to aid in the intraoperative localization of peripheral lymph nodes in dogs and cats. ANIMALS: 125 dogs and 10 cats with a total of 171 lymphadenectomies. PROCEDURES: Medical records of dogs and cats that underwent peripheral lymphadenectomies with or without (N) the AW or MB localization technique were reviewed. Data retrieved included clinical, surgical, and histologic findings. The proportions of successful lymphadenectomies, lymph node characteristics, and complications among the 3 groups were analyzed. RESULTS: 143 (84%) lymph nodes were successfully excised. Lymphadenectomy success was significantly affected by the localization technique, with 94% for group AW, 87% for group MB, and 72% for group N. Lymph node size was smaller in groups AW and MB, compared with group N. Duration of lymphadenectomy was shorter in group AW, compared with groups MB and N, and in group MB, compared with group N. Intra- (7%) and postoperative (10%) complications and final diagnosis did not significantly differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both lymph node localization techniques were highly successful and reduced surgery time, compared with unassisted lymphadenectomy. Specifically, these techniques were effective for localization of normal-sized and nonpalpable lymph nodes and were efficient and practical options for peripheral lymphadenectomies, particularly for those that were small or nonpalpable.
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/34914620/