FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Can Vet J / Clinical indications, complications, and long-term outcome o...
The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne2016; 57(12); 1257-1262;

Clinical indications, complications, and long-term outcome of esophageal surgeries in 27 horses.

Abstract: The main objective of this retrospective study was to describe clinical findings, management, and short- and long-term outcome in 27 horses that underwent various surgical techniques for esophageal disease. Surgical techniques (sometimes concurrently) performed were: esophagostomy ( = 14), esophagotomy with primary closure ( = 6), esophagomyotomy ( = 3), and esophagoplasty ( = 2). Esophageal perforation in 5 horses was treated by ventral drainage; 3 horses had the esophageal defect sutured ( = 3). Feeding tubes were placed in 15 horses. Postoperative complications occurred in 52% (14/27) with a median of 3 complications/horse (range: 1 to 7). Significantly more complications occurred in horses with a perforated esophagus. Eighteen horses (18/27; 67%) were discharged. Most horses (8/9; 89%) with a lesion located in the proximal esophagus were discharged. Horses with a higher number of postoperative complications, particularly postoperative infection, were more likely to be euthanized. One year after surgery, 41% of the horses were alive and free of complications. L’objectif principal de cette étude rétrospective a été de décrire les résultats cliniques, la gestion et les résultats à court et à long terme chez 27 chevaux qui ont subi diverses techniques de chirurgie pour le traitement de la maladie œsophagienne. Les techniques chirurgicales réalisées (parfois de manière concomitante) étaient : l’œsophagostomie ( = 14), l’œsophagotomie avec fermeture primaire ( = 6), l’œsophagomyotomie ( = 3) et l’œsophagoplastie ( = 2). La perforation œsophagienne chez 5 chevaux a été traitée par drainage ventral; 3 chevaux ont subi une suture du défaut œsophagien ( = 3). Des sondes d’alimentation ont été placées chez 15 chevaux. Les complications postopératoires se sont produites chez 52 % des chevaux (14/27) avec une médiane de 3 complications/cheval (fourchette : 1 à 7). Un nombre significativement supérieur de complications se sont produits chez les chevaux ayant une perforation de l’œsophage. Dix-huit chevaux (18/27; 67 %) ont reçu leur congé. La plupart des chevaux (8/9; 89 %) ayant une lésion situé dans l’œsophage proximal ont reçu leur congé. Il était plus probable que les chevaux avec un nombre supérieur de complications postopératoires, particulièrement une infection postopératoire, soient euthanasiés. Un an après la chirurgie, 41 % des chevaux étaient vivants et libres de complications.(Traduit par Isabelle Vallières).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2016-12-09 PubMed ID: 27928172PubMed Central: PMC5109628
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research is a retrospective study assessing the clinical findings, management, and outcomes of 27 horses that underwent surgical interventions to treat various esophageal diseases.

Objective and Methodology

  • The main goal of the study was to retrospectively analyze the outcomes of various surgical techniques used to treat esophageal disease in horses.
  • The surgeries included esophagostomy, esophagotomy with primary closure, esophagomyotomy, and esophagoplasty.
  • Additionally, esophageal perforations in some of the horses were treated using ventral drainage or suturing the esophageal defect.

Findings and Observations

  • Post-surgery complications arose in 52% of the horses, with each horse experiencing an average of three complications.
  • Horses with a perforated esophagus encountered significantly more complications.
  • Feeding tubes were inserted into 15 of the horses as part of the postoperative care.
  • Most horses with lesions localized in the proximal esophagus (8 out of 9) were discharged, indicating a higher success rate for treating conditions in this part of the esophagus.

Outcome and Conclusions

  • Approximately two-thirds of the horses (67%) successfully overcame their surgeries and related complications and were discharged.
  • Horses subjected to a higher number of postoperative complications, particularly those suffering from postoperative infection, were more likely to be euthanized.
  • One year post-surgery, around 41% of the horses were alive and free of complications.
  • The study concludes that while esophageal surgeries can aid in the treatment of the esophageal disease in horses, the risk of postoperative complications is considerable and can influence long-term survival negatively.

Cite This Article

APA
Koenig JB, Silveira A, Cribb NC, Piat P, Laverty S, Sorge US. (2016). Clinical indications, complications, and long-term outcome of esophageal surgeries in 27 horses. Can Vet J, 57(12), 1257-1262.

Publication

The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne
ISSN: 0008-5286
NlmUniqueID: 0004653
Country: Canada
Language: English
Volume: 57
Issue: 12
Pages: 1257-1262

Researcher Affiliations

Koenig, Judith B
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).
Silveira, Andressa
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).
Cribb, Nicola C
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).
Piat, Perrine
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).
Laverty, Sheila
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).
Sorge, Ulrike S
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 (Koenig, Silveira, Cribb); Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint Hyacinthe, Q J2S 2M2 (Piat, Laverty); Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108 USA (Sorge).

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Esophageal Diseases / surgery
  • Esophageal Diseases / veterinary
  • Female
  • Horse Diseases / surgery
  • Horses
  • Male
  • Odds Ratio
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Treatment Outcome

References

This article includes 11 references
  1. Craig DR, Shivy DR, Pankowski RL, Erb HN. Esophageal disorders in 61 horses. Results of nonsurgical and surgical management.. Vet Surg 1989 Nov-Dec;18(6):432-8.
    pubmed: 2513678doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1990.tb01120.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Kruger K, Davis JL. Management and complications associated with treatment of cervical oesophageal perforations in horses. Equine Vet Ed 2013;25:247–255.
  3. Stick JA. Esophagus. In: Auer JA, Stick JA, editors. Equine Surgery. 4th ed. Elsevier; 2012. pp. 367–388.
  4. Lillich JD, Frees KE, Warrington K, Van Harreveld PD, Gaughan EM, Beard WL. Esophagomyotomy and esophagopexy to create a diverticulum for treatment of chronic esophageal stricture in 2 horses.. Vet Surg 2001 Sep-Oct;30(5):449-53.
    pubmed: 11555820doi: 10.1053/jvet.2001.25870google scholar: lookup
  5. Eroglu A, Can Kürkçüogu I, Karaoganogu N, Tekinbaş C, Yimaz O, Başog M. Esophageal perforation: the importance of early diagnosis and primary repair.. Dis Esophagus 2004;17(1):91-4.
    pubmed: 15209749doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2004.00382.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  6. Chiavaccini L, Hassel DM. Clinical features and prognostic variables in 109 horses with esophageal obstruction (1992-2009).. J Vet Intern Med 2010 Sep-Oct;24(5):1147-52.
    pubmed: 20707844doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0573.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Feige K, Schwarzwald C, Fürst A, Kaser-Hotz B. Esophageal obstruction in horses: a retrospective study of 34 cases.. Can Vet J 2000 Mar;41(3):207-10.
    pmc: PMC1476298pubmed: 10738598
  8. Stick JA, Krehbiel JD, Kunze DJ, Wortman JA. Esophageal healing in the pony: comparison of sutured vs nonsutured esophagotomy.. Am J Vet Res 1981 Sep;42(9):1506-13.
    pubmed: 6798905
  9. Fubini SL, Starrak GE, Freeman DE. Esophagus. In: Auer JA, Stick JA, editors. Equine Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Saunders; 1999. pp. 199–209.
  10. Craig D, Todhunter R. Surgical repair of an esophageal stricture in a horse.. Vet Surg 1987 Jul-Aug;16(4):251-4.
    pubmed: 3507152doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1987.tb00948.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  11. Stick JA, Derksen FJ, Scott EA. Equine cervical esophagostomy: complications associated with duration and location of feeding tubes.. Am J Vet Res 1981 May;42(5):727-32.
    pubmed: 6789725

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.