ABSTRACT
Mesothelioma is a very aggressive malignant tumor with low survival rates that is often diagnosed belatedly. Pericardial effusion is a common consequence in cases of mesothelioma, with pericardiocentesis and pericardiectomy indicated; therefor thoracocentesis is necessary to drain the contents no longer retained in the pericardium. The present report describes a mesothelioma-carrying dog with a history of cardiac tamponade that underwent thoracoscopic pericardiectomy and, later, thoracoscopic implantation of a fully implantable catheter to function as a thoracic drain. In the consulted literature, there is no use of a fully implantable catheter for this purpose. The authors consider that there was an improvement in the quality of life.
Subject(s)
Dog Diseases/surgery , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Mesothelioma/surgery , Pericardiectomy/veterinary , Thoracoscopy/veterinary , Animals , Catheters, Indwelling/veterinary , Dogs , Female , Mesothelioma, Malignant , Pericardial Effusion/surgery , Pericardial Effusion/veterinary , Pericardiectomy/methods , Thoracoscopy/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare technical feasibility, surgical time, surgical complications, and postoperative pain in ovariectomy (OVE) by hybrid and total natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial. ANIMALS: Sixteen healthy and sexually intact bitches. METHODS: Dogs were randomly assigned to the hybrid NOTES group (HNG; n = 8) and the total NOTES group (TNG; n = 8) to compare surgical time, pain scores and complications. Pain was assessed by using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Melbourne pain scale (MPS). RESULTS: Surgical time did not differ between the experimental groups (HNG = 46.3 ± 18.5 minutes, TNG = 54.6 ± 31.1 minutes). Exteriorization of the ovaries through the vaginal wound was the major difficulty. Complications were minor in both groups and occurred intraoperatively only in the HNG, and in both groups post operatively. No dogs required rescue analgesia in the intraoperative or postoperative period. There were no differences in VAS or MPS scores between the groups for any surgical times except for the VAS assessment at 72 hours after extubation (HNG = 1.1 ± 0.3, TNG = 0.7 ± 0.4, P = .0221). CONCLUSION: Both NOTES techniques were comparable for canine OVE, with no requirement for additional analgesia in the postoperative periods. It was not possible to determine whether there was a clear advantage of one technique rather than the other. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The minimally invasive techniques proposed for laparoscopic OVE are feasible for dogs with low pain scores and low rates of complications for both groups.
