The use of polymeric liquid enteral diets for nutritional support in seriously ill or injured small animals: clinical results in 200 patients

Crowe, Dennis T.; Devey, Jennifer; Palmer, Darcie A.; Churchill, Julie

doi:10.5326/15473317-33-6-500

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[28][29][30][31][32] Uncomplicated GDV cases will usually resume voluntary food consumption within 1-3 days postoperatively. In complicated cases, nutritional support in the form of nasogastric or nasoesophageal tube feeding or peripheral or central parenteral nutrition is necessary.…”

Section: Management Of Gastrointestinal Dysfunctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative Management of Dogs With Gastric Dilatation and Volvulus

Bruchim

Kelmer

2014

Topics in Companion Animal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Management Of Gastrointestinal Dysfunctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative Management of Dogs With Gastric Dilatation and Volvulus

Bruchim

Kelmer

2014

Topics in Companion Animal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4,5 Enteral feedings help maintain an intact gastrointestinal mucosa, which is essential for maintaining the natural immunological defense mechanisms present in the gut and for decreasing the incidence of bacterial translocation and sepsis. [4][5][6][8][9][10] A useful rule of thumb for employing enteral nutrition is choosing the simplest method available for which there are no contraindications. 2 A jejunostomy tube (J-tube) is indicated when the small intestines are functional but gastric feeding is impossible or contra-indicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative complications associated with jejunostomy tube placement using the interlocking box technique compared with other jejunopexy methods in dogs and cats: 76 cases (1999–2003)

Yagil-Kelmer

Wagner‐Mann

Mann

2006

J Vet Emergen Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the postoperative complication rate associated with jejunostomy tubes (J-tubes) placed using the interlocking box (ILB) technique, and to test whether the ILB technique offers the advantage of early tube removal without additional complications in comparison with other jejunopexy methods. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Veterinary Teaching Hospital. Interventions: None. Measurements and main results: Seventy dogs and 6 cats had J-tubes placed during 1999-2003. Fifty-three tubes were placed using the ILB technique and 23 tubes were placed using a non-ILB technique. The overall tube-related complication rate was 33/76 (43.4%). The complication rate was slightly, but not significantly, lower in the ILB group (40% versus 52%; P 5 0.556). In the majority of cases, (24/76, 31.5%), complications were considered mild. Moderate complications were noted in 4/76 cases (5.2%) and severe complications in 5/76 cases (6.5%). The mean time the tube remained in place and the mean time of tube usage were significantly shorter in the ILB group (5.2 versus 7.6 days, P 5 0.008, and 3.3 versus 5.8 days, P 5 0.013, respectively). Hospitalization time was also significantly shorter in the ILB group (mean of 8.1 days versus 10.5 days, P 5 0.014). The shorter period of tube presence in the ILB group did not result in an increase of the overall complication rate; however, inflammation around the tube exit site was more prevalent in the ILB group. Tubes that were not used for nutritional support in the ILB group stayed in place for a mean of 3.7 days and were removed with no significant complications. More complications were identified in the first 2 years of the study compared with the last 2. Conclusions: The ILB technique is not associated with a higher complication rate compared with other jejunopexy methods, and offers the advantage of safe, early removal if the tube is no longer needed for nutritional support.(J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2006; 16(2)(S1): S14-S20)

show abstract

“…Information from clinical experience and preliminary studies in these species suggest that enteral nutrition is generally well tolerated and improves, or at least does not worsen, the course of pancreatitis (Klaus et al 2009;Mansfield, 2010). Their use is relatively safe, with severe complications (e.g., breakdown of the surgical site) being reported in only 0-6% of dogs (Swann et al 1997;Crowe et al 1997). Dogs and cats with acute pancreatitis that are not vomiting should generally be fed by mouth.…”

Section: Nutritionmentioning

confidence: 99%