4.4 Article

Evaluation of outcome following urethral stent placement for the treatment of obstructive carcinoma of the urethra in dogs: 42 cases (2004-2008)

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.242.1.59

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To evaluate the outcome following urethral stent placement for the palliative treatment of obstructive carcinoma of the urethra in dogs. Design-Retrospective case series. Animals-42 dogs with obstructive carcinoma of the urethra. Procedures-Medical records for dogs in which a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) was used for the treatment of obstructive carcinoma of the urethra were reviewed. Signalment, diagnostic findings, clinical signs before and after SEMS placement, and patient outcome were analyzed. Fluoroscopic images were evaluated to determine the effects of stent size, obstruction length, tumor length, and urethral length and width on the incidence of incontinence or stranguria. Results-Resolution of urinary tract obstruction was achieved in 41 of 42 (97.6%) dogs. After SEMS placement, 6 of 23 male and 5 of 19 female dogs developed severe incontinence, and 1 of 23 male and 1 of 17 female dogs developed stranguria. Stent length, diameter, and location were not associated with incidence of incontinence or stranguria. Median survival time after SEMS placement was 78 days (range, 7 to 536 days). Treatment with NSAIDs before and chemotherapeutics after SEMS placement increased median survival time to 251 days (range, 8 to 536 days). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Urethral SEMS placement was an effective palliative treatment for dogs with obstructive carcinoma of the urethra; however, severe incontinence subsequently developed in 11 of 42 (26%) treated dogs. Adjunctive treatment of affected dogs with NSAIDs and chemotherapeutics significantly increased the median survival time. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;242:59-68)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available