Sialoceles are infrequently reported in cats compared to dogs. 1 Sialoceles are subcutaneous, sublingual, or pharyngeal accumulations of saliva that is extravasated through a salivary gland/duct defect. Paraoral extravasation of saliva from the defect results in a sublingual sialocele or ranula, which is reported to be the most common location for sialocele formation in cats. 2 Diagnosis is based on clinical signs and needle aspiration results that reveal a thick, golden or blood-tinged, mucoid fluid with low cellularity. The recommended treatment of choice for sublingual sialocele includes resection of the ipsilateral mandibular and sublingual salivary gland/duct complexes. Marsupialization of the sialocele is also recommended. 2 The lateral cervical approach has been recommended for mandibular and sublingual sialadenectomy. 2-4 A ventral approach for mandibular and sublingual sialadenectomy has also been described in dogs. [5][6][7] The ventral approach has been recently described in a feline cadaver but not in clinical patients, 5 and is described here in a cat with a sublingual sialocele step-by-step. Figure 1Photograph showing a left-sided sublingual, fluctuant swelling in a 5-year-old DSH cat indicative of sublingual sialocele. Figure 2Photograph showing a feline patient with sublingual sialocele placed in dorsal recumbency for mandibular and sublingual sialadenectomy using the ventral approach (A). The incision is located on the ipsilateral side of the sialocele extending form 3-cm caudal to the ramus of the mandible to the caudal symphyseal area (B).

Objectives (1) To estimate the prevalence of delayed union, non‐union and mal‐union in canine fractures; (2) to describe fracture, demographic, and treatment characteristics for these outcomes; (3) to identify risk factors for delayed or non‐union. Study design Retrospective study. Sample population Four hundred and forty two dogs (461 fractures). Methods A review was conducted of clinical records and radiographs from 2 teaching hospitals. “Union,” “delayed union,” “non‐union” and “mal‐union” were defined, and fracture, demographic, treatment, and outcome variables described. Differences in proportions or medians between “union,” “delayed union” and “non‐union” were tested using χ2 and Mann‐Whitney U‐tests for categorical and continuous variables respectively. Potential explanatory variables for “delayed or non‐union” were tested using logistic regression to identify risk factors. Results Median radiographic follow up was 53 days (14‐282). Delayed union occurred in 13.9% of fractures (64/461), non‐union in 4.6% (21/461), and mal‐union in 0.7% (3/461). Risk factors for delayed or non‐union were age (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12‐1.31); comminuted fracture (OR 4.24, 95% CI 2.4‐7.5); treatment with bone graft (all types) (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.3‐8.5); surgical site infection (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.17‐8.97), and major implant failure (OR 12.94, 95% CI 5.06‐33.1). Conclusion Older dogs, dogs with comminuted fractures, surgical site infection, or major implant failure were at increased odds of delayed or non‐union. Radius and ulna fractures in toy breed dogs were not at increased odds of delayed or non‐union. Clinical significance The identified risk factors should inform fracture planning and prognosticating. The prognosis for radial fractures in toy breeds appears better than historically believed.

Objectives To describe the clinical findings, management and outcome of colonic impaction in dogs and report the effectiveness of medical treatment. Materials and Methods Case records of 58 dogs with colonic impaction were reviewed. Telephone contact with the owners was used to obtain long‐term outcome. Results Twenty‐nine dogs (50%) were mixed‐breed, and 45 (78%) were entire males. Median age at presentation was 7 years, and median bodyweight was 22 kg. The degree of radiographic colonic distension did not appear to be related to long‐term outcome. Fifty‐five dogs (95%) received medical treatment including enemas alone, hyperosmotic and/or bulk‐forming and/or lubricant laxatives, enemas combined with laxatives or enemas and/or laxatives combined with manual evacuation of faecal material under anaesthesia. Median survival time of the 58 dogs was 2 years. Overall, 36 of 41 dogs with available long‐term follow‐up had a favourable outcome. Clinical Significance Medical treatment of colonic impaction in dogs with a single agent or a combination of agents has a high success rate. Marked colonic dilation is not necessarily indicative of megacolon in dogs.

The creation of leakage holes in the intestinal wall by four types of swaged-on needles used to close enterotomy incisions in canine cadavers was studied. Twenty-four enterotomies were performed in 10 cm jejunal sections obtained from five dogs following euthanasia. After placement of Doyen intestinal forceps to the ends of each section, a 3 cm antimesenteric incision was performed and closed using 4-0 polydioxanone suture armed in a swaged-on needle in a simple interrupted pattern. One group served as control, with no enterotomies performed. The four groups that we used consisted of six sections each: group CC was closed with a polydioxanone suture armed in a conventional cutting needle, group RC was closed with a reversed cutting needle, group TPP was closed with a taper point plus needle, and group TC was closed with a taper cutting needle. Leak testing was performed by infusion of 13.5 mL methylene blue solution into the intestinal lumen. Significant differences between leakage and non-leakage sections of group CC were detected (P=.027). No statistical differences were detected among other groups. Conventional cutting needles seem to create leaking holes in cadaveric healthy jejunum during needle passage for closing an enterotomy incision.

No abstract