Jessica Baron, S. Casale, E. Monnet, P. Mayhew, J. Runge, Christelle M Follette, K. Phipps, M. Powell, Alicja I Reczynska, N. Squire, B. Barton, J. Berg
{"title":"Paramedian incisional complications after prophylactic laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy in 411 dogs.","authors":"Jessica Baron, S. Casale, E. Monnet, P. Mayhew, J. Runge, Christelle M Follette, K. Phipps, M. Powell, Alicja I Reczynska, N. Squire, B. Barton, J. Berg","doi":"10.1111/vsu.13348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo determine the frequency and types of paramedian incisional complications after prophylactic laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (LAG) in dogs and to evaluate potential risk factors for complications.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nMulti-institutional retrospective study.\n\n\nANIMALS\nClient-owned dogs (N = 411).\n\n\nMETHODS\nRecords for dogs that underwent single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (SIPLAG) or multiple-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (MPLAG) at five veterinary referral hospitals were reviewed. Information regarding signalment, surgical procedures, perioperative care, and incisional complications was collected. Follow-up information was obtained by review of medical records and/or communication with owners. Potential risk factors for complications were examined statistically.\n\n\nRESULTS\nParamedian incisional complications were observed in 78 of 411 (19%) dogs. The most common complication was seroma formation, which occurred in 51 (12.4%) dogs. Surgical site infections were observed in 16 (3.9%) dogs, and dehiscence or development of excessive scar tissue at the incision site were each observed in nine (2.2%) dogs. Complications resolved with conservative treatment in 75 of 78 (96.2%) dogs and with surgical treatment in three of 78 (3.8%) dogs. The odds of complications were approximately twice as high in dogs undergoing SIPLAG than in dogs undergoing MPLAG (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .006).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nMinor paramedian incisional complications, particularly seroma formation, were frequently observed after LAG. Most complications were successfully managed conservatively. Single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy was associated with a higher complication rate compared with MPLAG.\n\n\nCLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE\nOwners should be informed that there is a relatively high rate of minor paramedian incisional complications after LAG. The risk of complications appears to be higher for SIPLAG than for MPLAG.","PeriodicalId":123280,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary surgery : VS","volume":"192 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary surgery : VS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To determine the frequency and types of paramedian incisional complications after prophylactic laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (LAG) in dogs and to evaluate potential risk factors for complications.
STUDY DESIGN
Multi-institutional retrospective study.
ANIMALS
Client-owned dogs (N = 411).
METHODS
Records for dogs that underwent single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (SIPLAG) or multiple-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy (MPLAG) at five veterinary referral hospitals were reviewed. Information regarding signalment, surgical procedures, perioperative care, and incisional complications was collected. Follow-up information was obtained by review of medical records and/or communication with owners. Potential risk factors for complications were examined statistically.
RESULTS
Paramedian incisional complications were observed in 78 of 411 (19%) dogs. The most common complication was seroma formation, which occurred in 51 (12.4%) dogs. Surgical site infections were observed in 16 (3.9%) dogs, and dehiscence or development of excessive scar tissue at the incision site were each observed in nine (2.2%) dogs. Complications resolved with conservative treatment in 75 of 78 (96.2%) dogs and with surgical treatment in three of 78 (3.8%) dogs. The odds of complications were approximately twice as high in dogs undergoing SIPLAG than in dogs undergoing MPLAG (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .006).
CONCLUSION
Minor paramedian incisional complications, particularly seroma formation, were frequently observed after LAG. Most complications were successfully managed conservatively. Single-incision-port laparoscopy-assisted gastropexy was associated with a higher complication rate compared with MPLAG.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Owners should be informed that there is a relatively high rate of minor paramedian incisional complications after LAG. The risk of complications appears to be higher for SIPLAG than for MPLAG.