Outcomes of esophageal and gastric bone foreign bodies in dogs

Abstract

Background Bone foreign bodies are commonly encountered in small animal practice. Esophageal bone foreign bodies (E‐bFBs) warrant removal, whereas gastric bone foreign bodies might not. Objectives Describe management and outcomes for dogs with esophageal or gastric bone foreign bodies. Animals One hundred twenty‐nine dogs with esophageal (n = 45) or gastric (n = 84) bone foreign bodies. Methods Retrospective review of medical records. Results Dogs with E‐bFBs were younger than dogs with gastric bone foreign bodies (median age esophageal, 4 years [IQR 2‐8]; median age gastric, 6 years [IQR 3‐10]; P = .03), and had a higher bone cross‐sectional area relative to body weight (median esophageal, 98.21 mm2/kg [IQR 48.25‐142.6]; median gastric, 28.6 mm2/kg [IQR 17.25‐64.28]; P < .001). Forty‐two of 45 esophageal foreign bodies were resolved non‐surgically and 3 by esophagotomy. Esophageal erosions were more likely with distal entrapment (OR 12.88, [95% CI 31.95‐129.29], P = .01) and longer duration (OR 18.82 [95% CI 2.22‐273.97], P = .01). Sixty‐two of 84 bone gastric foreign bodies were left in situ. Endoscopic removal was successful in 20 of 22 (91%; 95% CI 70‐99) attempts. Conclusions and Clinical Importance While all E‐bFBs were dislodged either by advancement into the stomach, endoscopic removal, or esophagotomy, the majority of gastric bone foreign bodies were left in situ for dissolution, with no reported complications. Gastric advancement of E‐bFBs should be considered when oral removal is not feasible, and dissolution can be considered even with large bones.

Prevalence and diagnostic methods of surgical pathology in the digestive system of animals

“…The following instrumental diagnostic methods were used to clarify the diagnosis of surgical pathology of the digestive system in animals: X-ray examination (Figs. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], ultrasound diagnostics (Fig. 12), and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (Fig.…”

Untitled

“…According to N.R. Barash et al (2022), the anterior section is responsible for capturing, chewing, and swallowing food, the middle section for digestion and absorption of nutrients, and the posterior section for the formation of faecal masses from undigested feed residues.…”

Endoscopic Retrieval of Esophageal and Gastric Foreign Bodies in Cats and Dogs: A Retrospective Study of 92 Cases

“…The success rate for the endoscopic removal of esophageal FBs was 68–88%, whereas gastric FBs showed a success rate of 78–94% [ 4 ]. If endoscopic retrieval fails, the FB needs surgical removal [ 4 , 5 ]. Esophageal FBs can be pushed into the stomach.…”

“…Esophageal FBs can be pushed into the stomach. This is useful because food material (bone, cartilaginous) can be digested, whereas other FBs can be removed via gastrotomy, which has a lower rate of complication and better prognosis than esophageal surgery [ 2 , 5 ].…”