Portovenography Findings Following Partial Polypropylene Versus Thin Film Band Attenuation of a Single Congenital Extrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: A Prospective Randomized Study in Dogs.
congenital
congenital vessel anomaly
mesenteric portovenography
multiple acquired shunts
residual shunt flow
Journal
Veterinary sciences
ISSN: 2306-7381
Titre abrégé: Vet Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101680127
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2023
15 May 2023
Historique:
received:
10
04
2023
revised:
30
04
2023
accepted:
12
05
2023
medline:
26
5
2023
pubmed:
26
5
2023
entrez:
26
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective was to conduct a prospective, randomized study to compare mesenteric portovenogram findings following partial polypropylene suture versus thin film band extrahepatic portosystemic shunt attenuation in dogs. Dogs with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts that could not tolerate complete acute shunt closure received a partial attenuation with either a polypropylene suture or synthetic polymer thin film band. At a routine second surgery three months after shunt patency, missed shunt branches and/or development of multiple acquired shunts were assessed using intra-operative mesenteric portovenography. Twenty-four dogs were enrolled, 12 received partial polypropylene suture ligation, and 12 received partial thin film band shunt attenuation. Intra-operative mesenteric portovenography three months later demonstrated that nine dogs (75%) in the thin film band group had achieved complete shunt closure versus two dogs (16.7%) in the polypropylene suture group, which was significantly different (
Identifiants
pubmed: 37235436
pii: vetsci10050353
doi: 10.3390/vetsci10050353
pmc: PMC10224159
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Vet Surg. 2020 Jan;49(1):160-171
pubmed: 31270829
Vet Rec. 2020 Oct 3;187(7):e48
pubmed: 31662576
Vet Surg. 2014 Oct;43(7):834-42
pubmed: 24749629
Can Vet J. 2016 Jan;57(1):59-64
pubmed: 26740699
Res Vet Sci. 2019 Oct;126:192-198
pubmed: 31539796
Vet Surg. 2013 Nov;42(8):951-7
pubmed: 24118005
J Small Anim Pract. 2022 Dec;63(12):882-889
pubmed: 36089752
Aust Vet J. 2003 Nov;81(11):666-70
pubmed: 15086105
Vet Surg. 2016 Nov;45(8):1013-1018
pubmed: 27685889
Vet Surg. 1995 Jul-Aug;24(4):331-6
pubmed: 7571385
Aust Vet J. 2008 May;86(5):169-79; quiz CE1
pubmed: 18454834
J Small Anim Pract. 2018 Feb;59(2):106-111
pubmed: 29171668
Aust Vet J. 1999 May;77(5):303-7
pubmed: 10376100
Vet Surg. 2016 Aug;45(6):736-45
pubmed: 27391379
BMC Vet Res. 2016 Dec 9;12(1):283
pubmed: 27938359
Vet Rec. 2004 Oct 9;155(15):448-56
pubmed: 15518405
Aust Vet J. 1998 Aug;76(8):531-7
pubmed: 9741718
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 Oct 1;229(7):1122-9
pubmed: 17014361
J Small Anim Pract. 2001 Nov;42(11):536-40
pubmed: 11721981
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 May 1;228(9):1355-60
pubmed: 16649938
Vet Surg. 1995 Sep-Oct;24(5):379-83
pubmed: 8585144
Vet Surg. 2020 Apr;49(3):436-444
pubmed: 31971276
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005 Jun 15;226(12):2020-30
pubmed: 15989185
Vet Surg. 2018 Feb;47(2):179-187
pubmed: 29247521
J Vet Intern Med. 2019 Sep;33(5):1865-1879
pubmed: 31471995
Vet Surg. 2018 Jul;47(5):722-728
pubmed: 29697147
Vet Surg. 2022 Oct;51(7):1142-1152
pubmed: 35729849
Vet Surg. 2004 Jan-Feb;33(1):25-31
pubmed: 14687183
Vet Surg. 2004 Jan-Feb;33(1):17-24
pubmed: 14687182
Vet Q. 2000 Apr;22(2):94-8
pubmed: 10789517
Am J Vet Res. 2017 Nov;78(11):1338-1346
pubmed: 29076372