Kedilerde Linear ve Linear Olmayan Gastrointestinal Yabancı Cisim Tıkanıklıklarının Postoperatif Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi (52 Olgunun Retrospektif Çalışması)

Öz

Bu çalışma, kedilerde yabancı cisim (YC) yutma vakalarında, YC’lerin lokalizasyonu, operasyon bölgeleri ve YC yutma sonrası geçen sürenin prognoz üzerindeki etkisi ile sağkalım oranlarının belirlenmesini amaçlamaktadır. 2022-2024 yılları arasında Selçuk Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi'ne YC yutma şüphesiyle getirilen 52 kedi değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmadaki kedilerin %63,4’ü kısa tüylü ev kedisi, %59,6’sı dişi ve %51,9’u iki yaşın altındaydı. YC türleri olarak en sık; linear YC’ler (%40,5 (n = 21)) ve plastik YC’ler (%40,5, n = 21) tespit edilmiştir. En yaygın klinik belirtiler arasında kusma, anoreksi, halsizlik ve abdominal distansiyon gözlemlenmiştir. Hematolojik incelemelerde hipokalemi (%61,9) ve diğer elektrolit dengesizlikleri dikkat çekmiştir. Radyografik ve ultrasonografik incelemelerde, gastrointestinal obstrüksiyon, bağırsak segmentlerinde genişleme ve peristaltik hareketlerde azalma görülmüştür. Cerrahi müdahaleler arasında gastrotomi ve enterotomi uygulanmış olup, bunların %36,5’inde multifokal girişimde bulunulmuştur. Çalışmada olguların sağkalım oranı %76,9 iken, %23,1 oranında mortalite, özellikle lineer YC kaynaklı komplikasyonlara bağlı olarak görülmüştür. Postoperatif komplikasyonlar arasında septik peritonit ve sepsis, vakaların %21’inde gözlenmiş ve mortalite oranına katkıda bulunmuştur. Sağ kalanlarda cerrahiye kadar geçen ortalama süre 67,2 saat iken, hayatını kaybedenlerde bu süre 96 saat olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, YC yutma vakalarında erken teşhis ve uygun cerrahi müdahalelerin önem taşıdığı, prognozun YC’nin türüne ve müdahale süresine bağlı olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kedi
• Gastrointestinal yabancı cisim
• Peritonitis

Evaluation of Postoperative Outcomes for Linear and Non-linear Gastrointestinal Foreign Body Obstruction in Cats (Retrospective Study of 52 Cases)

Öz

This study aims to determine the localisation of foreign bodies (FBs), surgical sites, the impact of the time elapsed after FB ingestion on prognosis, and survival rates in cats. A total of 52 cats presented to Selcuk University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected FB ingestion between 2022 and 2024 were evaluated. Among these cats, 63.4% were short-haired domestic cats, 59.6% were female, and 51.9% were under two years old. The most common types of FBs were linear (40.5%) and plastic (40.5%). The most frequent clinical signs were vomiting, anorexia, lethargy, and abdominal distension. Hematological examinations revealed hypokalaemia (61.9%) and electrolyte imbalances. Radiographic and ultrasonographic evaluations showed gastrointestinal obstruction, intestinal dilation, and reduced peristaltic movements. Surgical procedures, including gastrotomy and enterotomy, were performed, with multifocal intervention required in 36.5% of cases. The survival rate was 76.9%, while the mortality rate was 23.1%, mainly due to complications from linear FBs. Postoperative complications such as septic peritonitis and sepsis were observed in 21% of cases, contributing to the mortality rate. The average time to surgery was 67.2 hours in survivors and 96 hours in those who did not survive. In conclusion, early diagnosis and appropriate surgical intervention are crucial, with prognosis depending on the type of FB and the intervention time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cat
• Gastrointestinal foreign body
• Peritonitis

Kaynakça

1. Allen, D. A., Smeak, D. D., & Schertel, E. R. (1992). Prevalence of small intestinal dehiscence and associated clinical factors: a retrospective study of 121 dogs. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 28(1), 70-76. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19932280396
2. Arıcan, M. (2011). Veteriner Genel Radyoloji ve Kedi Köpek için Tanısal Radyografi Atlası. Selçuk Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Cerrahi ABD.
3. Boag, A. K., Coe, R. J., Martinez, T. A., & Hughes, D. (2005). Acid‐base and electrolyte abnormalities in dogs with gastrointestinal foreign bodies. Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 19(6), 816-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2005.tb02770.x
4. Cola, V., Del Magno, S., Valentini, S., Zanardi, S., Foglia, A., Spinella, G., ... & Pisoni, L. (2019). Deep vegetal foreign bodies in cats: a retrospective study of 10 cases. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 55(5), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-6913
5. Crinò, C., Humm, K., & Cortellini, S. (2023). Conservative management of metallic sharp‐pointed straight gastric and intestinal foreign bodies in dogs and cats: 17 cases (2003‐2021). Journal of Small Animal Practice, 64(8), 522-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13606
6. Çamkerten, İ., & Şahin, T. (2006). Kedi ve Köpeklerde Akut Abdomen. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 27-32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/146611
7. Demirel, A. (2021). Kedi ve köpeklerde mide barsak yabancı cisim prevalansı (Master's thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi. (Dissertation No: 674623).
8. Elser, E. B., Mai, W., Reetz, J. A., Thawley, V., Bagshaw, H., & Suran, J. N. (2020). Serial abdominal radiographs do not significantly increase accuracy of diagnosis of gastrointestinal mechanical obstruction due to occult foreign bodies in dogs and cats. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 61(4), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12870

9. Erol, H. (2019). Köpeklerde Yabancı Cisme (Kulak Küpesi) Bağlı Şekillenen Mekanik İleus’ un Operatif Sağaltım ve Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi: 6 Olgu. Erciyes Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 92-97. https://doi.org/10.32707/ercivet.595651
10. Evans, K. L., Smeak, D. D., & Biller, D. S. (1994). Gastrointestinal linear foreign bodies in 32 dogs: a retrospective evaluation and feline comparison. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 30(5), 445-450. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19942216565
11. Finck, C., D'Anjou, M. A., Alexander, K., Specchi, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2014). Radiographic diagnosis of mechanical obstruction in dogs based on relative small intestinal external diameters. Veterinary radiology & ultrasound, 55(5), 472-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12153
12. Gollnick, H. R., Schmiedt, C. W., Wallace, M. L., Sutherland, B. J., & Grimes, J. A. (2023). Retrospective evaluation of surgical treatment of linear and discrete gastrointestinal foreign bodies in cats: 2009–2021. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 25(6), 1098612X231178140.https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X23117814
13. Guilford, W. G., & Strombeck, D. R. (1996). Intestinal obstruction, pseudoobstruction, and foreign bodies, in Guilford WG, Center SA, Strombeck DR, et al (eds): Strombeck’s Small Animal Gastroenterology, ed 3. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, pp 487–502. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19972203983
14. Gülaydın, A., & Akgül, M. B. (2024). Evaluation of Cases of Foreign Body Ingestion in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Cats: 12 Cases. Harran Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.31196/huvfd.1468487
15. Hayes, G. (2009). Gastrointestinal foreign bodies in dogs and cats: a retrospective study of 208 cases. Journal of small animal practice, 50(11), 576-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00783.x
16. Kan, T., Hess, R. S., & Clarke, D. L. (2022). Clinical findings and patient outcomes following surgical treatment of chronic gastrointestinal foreign body obstructions in dogs and cats: 72 cases (2010‐2020). Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 86(4), 311-315. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9536220/
17. MacPhail, C. (2002). Gastrointestinal obstruction. Clinical Techniques in Small Animal Practice, 17(4), 178-183. https://doi.org/10.1053/svms.2002.36606
18. Miller, A. K., Regier, P. J., Ham, K. M., Case, J. B., Fisher, K. J., Rogers, J. M., ... & Colee, J. C. (2024). Linear and discrete foreign body small intestinal obstruction outcomes, complication risk factors, and single incision red rubber catheter technique success in cats. Veterinary Surgery, 53(7), 1256-1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14125
19. Papazoglou, L. G., Patsikas, M. N., & Rallis, T. (2003). Intestinal foreign bodies in dogs and cats. Compendıum on contınuıng educatıon for the practısıng veterınarıan-north amerıcan edıtıon-, 25(11), 830-845 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282211745
20. Parlak, K., Akyol, E. T., Uzunlu, E. O., Zamirbekova, N., Çayırlı, Ü. F. B., & Arıcan, M. (2022). Gastrointestinal linear foreign bodies in cats: A retrospective study of 12 cases. Journal of Advances in VetBio Science and Techniques, 7(2), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.31797/vetbio.1131263
21. Pratt, C. L., Reineke, E. L., & Drobatz, K. J. (2014). Sewing needle foreign body ingestion in dogs and cats: 65 cases (2000–2012). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 245(3), 302-308. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.245.3.302
22. Sayın, M. (2024). Kedilerde gastrointestinal yabancı cisimler; radyografik, endoskopik ve biyokimyasal değerlendirme (Master's thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi. (Dissertation No: 896074).
23. Shales, C. J., Warren, J., Anderson, D. M., Baines, S. J., & White, R. A. S. (2005). Complications following full‐thickness small intestinal biopsy in 66 dogs: a retrospective study. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 46(7), 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2005.tb00326.x
24. Tyrrell, D., & Beck, C. (2006). Survey of the use of radiography vs. ultrasonography in the investigation of gastrointestinal foreign bodies in small animals. Veterinary radiology & ultrasound, 47(4), 404-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2006.00160.x
25. Willis, S. E., & Farrow, C. S. (1991). Partial gastrointestinal obstruction for one month due to a linear foreign body in a cat. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 32(11), 689-691. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1481086/