Article Text

PDF
Outcome of two variations of surgical technique performed for canine unilateral arytenoid lateralisation
  1. Pablo Perez Lopez,
  2. Darren Christopher Barnes,
  3. Pieter Nelissen and
  4. Jackie Demetriou
  1. Dick White Referrals, Newmarket, UK
  1. E-mail for correspondence; pabloperezlopez{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of aspiration pneumonia and survival time of dogs undergoing two unilateral arytenoid lateralisation (UAL) techniques.

Methods Eighty dogs diagnosed with laryngeal paralysis were treated by one of two UAL techniques: (1) a standard technique (ST) and (2) an anatomic preservation technique (APT). Outcome was assessed by in clinic re-examination and an owner follow-up questionnaire.

Results Minor complications were reported for 22 per cent of dogs undergoing ST and 26 per cent for APT. Major complications were 7 per cent for ST versus 23 per cent for APT. Postoperative aspiration pneumonia was reported for 7 per cent of cases in ST and 17 per cent in APT. The median survival time for ST was 636 days and was 1067 days for APT. Cause of death was related to the laryngeal paralysis in 22 per cent, neurological deterioration in 16 per cent and for non-associated reasons in 59 per cent of cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of aspiration pneumonia or survival time among the treatment groups. Owners reported that their dogs improved after both surgical procedures, with 90 per cent of the owners satisfied with the surgical outcome. Eighteen per cent of the dogs suffered recurrence of clinical signs.

Conclusions In this study, there was no significant difference in risk of aspiration pneumonia or survival time following arytenoid lateralisation by either an ST or an APT.

  • dogs
  • arytenoid cartilage
  • laryngeal muscles
  • pneumonia, aspiration
  • polyneuropathies
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.