Efficacy and safety of laser lithotripsy in fragmentation of urocystoliths and urethroliths for removal in dogs

Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (Impact Factor: 1.67). 06/2009; 234(10):1279-85. DOI: 10.2460/javma.234.10.1279
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To characterize the efficacy and safety of laser lithotripsy in the fragmentation of urocystoliths and urethroliths for removal in dogs.
Prospective case series.
100 dogs with naturally occurring urocystoliths and urethroliths.
Via cystoscopy, laser lithotripsy was performed to fragment uroliths. Basket retrieval and voiding urohydropropulsion were used to remove fragments. Postprocedural contrast cystography was performed to assess efficacy and safety. In 40 dogs, midstream urine samples were collected just prior to laser lithotripsy (day 0) and on days 1, 3, and 11 after laser lithotripsy to assess inflammation.
Urolith removal was complete in 82% of dogs (52/66 with only urocystoliths, 17/17 with only urethroliths, and 13/17 with urocystoliths and urethroliths). Urolith removal was incomplete in 18 dogs; of these dogs, 9, 6, and 3 had urolith fragments >or= 3 mm, 1 to < 3 mm, and < 1 mm in diameter, respectively. Sex (female) was the most significant predictor for success. Median procedure time was 72 minutes. Two dogs developed urinary tract obstruction following laser lithotripsy. Hematuria was detected in 53% of dogs on day 0 and in 84%, 13%, and 3% of dogs on days 1, 3, and 11, respectively. Leukocyturia was detected in 13% of dogs on day 0 and in 47%, 0%, and 3% of dogs on days 1, 3, and 11, respectively.
Results suggested that use of laser lithotripsy was a safe and effective alternative to surgical removal of urocystoliths and urethroliths in dogs.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines the use of portfolios as pedagogical tools for developing academic writing. In particular, it considers the value of multi-drafting, where learners reflect on the learning of a text type as well as focusing on micro and macro aspects. The paper outlines a situated pedagogical approach, where students come to understand their improvement across three portfolio drafts and evaluate their learning reflectively. A multicultural group of 41 learners enrolled in the degree-level course ‘Academic Writing’ at a tertiary institution in New Zealand participated in a study evaluating the portfolio approach to building awareness of their own writing. Focus group interviews provided qualitative data, analysed using a grounded theory approach. Triangulating data came from student reflective memoranda written in response to each drafting process. We conclude that a multi-draft portfolio is an effective assessment tool, not only because it provides a feedback loop but also because it enhances learners’ understanding of writing as a recursive process. This provides them with aspects of academic writing literacy such as self-editing and the insight to reorganise academic texts by applying target genre and discourse knowledge.
    Assessing Writing 04/2011; 16(2):111-122. DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical procedures of the lower urinary tract are commonly performed in small animal practice. Cystotomy for removal of uroliths and urethrostomy diverting urine outflow due to urethral obstruction are the most commonly performed surgical procedures of the bladder and urethra respectively. Surgical procedures of the lower urinary tract are typically associated with few complications, including leakage of urine, loss of luminal diameter (stricture or stenosis), urine outflow obstruction, tissue devitalization, denervation, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, and death. Complications can result from inappropriate or inadequate diagnosis, localization, and surgical planning; failure to respect regional anatomy, and other causes.
    Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 09/2011; 41(5):889-913, v. DOI:10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.07.001 · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Small Animal Practice 11/2012; 53(11):621-2. DOI:10.1111/j.1748-5827.2012.01300.x · 0.91 Impact Factor