Prospective evaluation of two intracorporeally sutured prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy techniques compared with laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs

Philipp Mayhew, Dorothy Cimino Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To report technique, surgical time, complication rate, and postoperative activity in dogs undergoing 2 intracorporeally-sutured total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) techniques compared with a laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) technique. Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Animals Dogs (n=30) weighing >25 kg. Methods Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Two TLG techniques were performed using a median 3 portal technique. One of 2 suturing techniques was used to approximate corresponding incisions made in the stomach and body wall; using intracorporeal hand-suturing or a suture-assist device (Endostitch). In a 3rd group, a previously reported LAG technique was used. All dogs had an activity monitor placed for 7 days pre- and postoperatively. Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of surgical procedure on gastropexy time and the percentage change in activity counts. Results Median gastropexy time was 28 minutes (range, 20-41 minutes) for LAG, 48 minutes (range, 39-61 minutes) for the hand suture TLG technique, and 56 minutes (range, 30-90 minutes) for the Endostitch TLG technique. LAG was performed faster than TLG (P<.05). LAG dogs had a greater decrease in postoperative activity than TLG dogs (P=.005); however there was no difference in surgical time or postoperative activity between TLG techniques. Conclusions TLG can be performed safely and effectively in dogs and although it takes longer, it has less impact on postoperative activity compared with LAG. Clinical Relevance TLG techniques may have advantages over LAG as measured by a greater willingness of dogs to move around postoperatively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)738-746
Number of pages9
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Gastropexy
Dogs
dogs
methodology
sutures
hands
surgery
Operative Time
randomized clinical trials
Sutures
integument
Hand

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

@article{e4ed61d2eac74f589091b023f4d0d1e6,
title = "Prospective evaluation of two intracorporeally sutured prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy techniques compared with laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs",
abstract = "Objective To report technique, surgical time, complication rate, and postoperative activity in dogs undergoing 2 intracorporeally-sutured total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) techniques compared with a laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) technique. Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Animals Dogs (n=30) weighing >25 kg. Methods Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Two TLG techniques were performed using a median 3 portal technique. One of 2 suturing techniques was used to approximate corresponding incisions made in the stomach and body wall; using intracorporeal hand-suturing or a suture-assist device (Endostitch™). In a 3rd group, a previously reported LAG technique was used. All dogs had an activity monitor placed for 7 days pre- and postoperatively. Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of surgical procedure on gastropexy time and the percentage change in activity counts. Results Median gastropexy time was 28 minutes (range, 20-41 minutes) for LAG, 48 minutes (range, 39-61 minutes) for the hand suture TLG technique, and 56 minutes (range, 30-90 minutes) for the Endostitch™ TLG technique. LAG was performed faster than TLG (P<.05). LAG dogs had a greater decrease in postoperative activity than TLG dogs (P=.005); however there was no difference in surgical time or postoperative activity between TLG techniques. Conclusions TLG can be performed safely and effectively in dogs and although it takes longer, it has less impact on postoperative activity compared with LAG. Clinical Relevance TLG techniques may have advantages over LAG as measured by a greater willingness of dogs to move around postoperatively.",
author = "Philipp Mayhew and Brown, {Dorothy Cimino}",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00554.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "738--746",
journal = "Veterinary Surgery",
issn = "0161-3499",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective evaluation of two intracorporeally sutured prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy techniques compared with laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs

AU - Mayhew, Philipp

AU - Brown, Dorothy Cimino

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - Objective To report technique, surgical time, complication rate, and postoperative activity in dogs undergoing 2 intracorporeally-sutured total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) techniques compared with a laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) technique. Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Animals Dogs (n=30) weighing >25 kg. Methods Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Two TLG techniques were performed using a median 3 portal technique. One of 2 suturing techniques was used to approximate corresponding incisions made in the stomach and body wall; using intracorporeal hand-suturing or a suture-assist device (Endostitch™). In a 3rd group, a previously reported LAG technique was used. All dogs had an activity monitor placed for 7 days pre- and postoperatively. Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of surgical procedure on gastropexy time and the percentage change in activity counts. Results Median gastropexy time was 28 minutes (range, 20-41 minutes) for LAG, 48 minutes (range, 39-61 minutes) for the hand suture TLG technique, and 56 minutes (range, 30-90 minutes) for the Endostitch™ TLG technique. LAG was performed faster than TLG (P<.05). LAG dogs had a greater decrease in postoperative activity than TLG dogs (P=.005); however there was no difference in surgical time or postoperative activity between TLG techniques. Conclusions TLG can be performed safely and effectively in dogs and although it takes longer, it has less impact on postoperative activity compared with LAG. Clinical Relevance TLG techniques may have advantages over LAG as measured by a greater willingness of dogs to move around postoperatively.

AB - Objective To report technique, surgical time, complication rate, and postoperative activity in dogs undergoing 2 intracorporeally-sutured total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) techniques compared with a laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy (LAG) technique. Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Animals Dogs (n=30) weighing >25 kg. Methods Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Two TLG techniques were performed using a median 3 portal technique. One of 2 suturing techniques was used to approximate corresponding incisions made in the stomach and body wall; using intracorporeal hand-suturing or a suture-assist device (Endostitch™). In a 3rd group, a previously reported LAG technique was used. All dogs had an activity monitor placed for 7 days pre- and postoperatively. Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of surgical procedure on gastropexy time and the percentage change in activity counts. Results Median gastropexy time was 28 minutes (range, 20-41 minutes) for LAG, 48 minutes (range, 39-61 minutes) for the hand suture TLG technique, and 56 minutes (range, 30-90 minutes) for the Endostitch™ TLG technique. LAG was performed faster than TLG (P<.05). LAG dogs had a greater decrease in postoperative activity than TLG dogs (P=.005); however there was no difference in surgical time or postoperative activity between TLG techniques. Conclusions TLG can be performed safely and effectively in dogs and although it takes longer, it has less impact on postoperative activity compared with LAG. Clinical Relevance TLG techniques may have advantages over LAG as measured by a greater willingness of dogs to move around postoperatively.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62449262224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62449262224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00554.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00554.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19674417

AN - SCOPUS:62449262224

VL - 38

SP - 738

EP - 746

JO - Veterinary Surgery

JF - Veterinary Surgery

SN - 0161-3499

IS - 6

ER -