JAAHA Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ireland, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Weissman, B. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ireland, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Weissman, B. L.
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 39:241-246 (2003)
© 2003 American Animal Hospital Association

Retrospective Study

A Comparison of Owner Management and Complications in 67 Cats With Esophagostomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Feeding Tubes

Lisa M. Ireland, DVM, Ann E. Hohenhaus, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM, John D. Broussard, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM and Brenda L. Weissman

From the Department of Medicine, The Bobst Hospital of The Animal Medical Center, 510 East 62nd Street, New York, New York 10021.

Address all correspondence to Dr. Ireland.

Esophagostomy feeding tubes were placed in 46 cats. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tubes were placed in 21 cats. Owner management and complications and facility of use were evaluated retrospectively by review of medical records and owner survey. Both tube types were equally effective for maintenance of body weight, ease of owner management, and complication rates. All of 12 owners surveyed were comfortable with PEG tube management. Ninety-six percent of 24 owners surveyed were comfortable with esophagostomy tube management. The esophagostomy tube can be placed less invasively, without specialized equipment, making it an excellent alternative to the PEG tube.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationHome page
S. J. Campbell, S. L. Marks, S. K. Yoshimoto, D. L. Riel, and A. J. Fascetti
Complications and outcomes of one-step low-profile gastrostomy devices for long-term enteral feeding in dogs and cats.
J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc., May 1, 2006; 42(3): 197 - 206.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationHome page
B. J. Salinardi, K. R. Harkin, B. J. Bulmer, and J. K. Roush
Comparison of Complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Versus Surgically Placed Gastrostomy Tubes in 42 Dogs and 52 Cats
J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc., January 1, 2006; 42(1): 51 - 56.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Animal Hospital AssociationHome page
L. A. Cohn, M. R. Stoll, K. R. Branson, A. D. Roudabush, M. E. Kerl, P. F. Langdon, and C. M. Johannes
Fatal Hemothorax Following Management of an Esophageal Foreign Body
J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc., May 1, 2003; 39(3): 251 - 256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Animal Hospital Association.