BACKGROUND: Benign esophageal strictures can recur despite multiple dilatation procedures and palliative management can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and determine the outcome of esophageal stenting for treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES) in dogs. ANIMALS: Nine dogs with RBES. METHODS: Retrospective review of records for dogs with RBES. Indwelling intraluminal esophageal stents were placed transorally with endoscopy, fluoroscopic guidance, or both. Follow-up information was obtained via medical record or telephone interview. RESULTS: Nine dogs had 10 stents placed including biodegradable stents (BDS) (6/10), self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) (3/10), and a self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) (1/10). All dogs had short-term improved dysphagia. Complications included ptyalism, apparent nausea, gagging, vomiting, or regurgitation (8/9), confirmed recurrence of stricture (6/9), stent migration (3/9), stent shortening (1/9), megaesophagus (1/9), incisional infection (1/9), and tracheal-esophageal fistula (1/9). Eight of 9 dogs required intervention because of the complications of which 4 of 8 dogs were eventually euthanized because of stent-related issues. One dog was lost to follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Findings suggest that esophageal stent placement was safe and technically effective, but unpredictably tolerated in dogs with RBES. If a stent is placed, dogs should be monitored carefully for stent migration, dissolution of absorbable stents, and recurrence of strictures.
BACKGROUND: Benign esophageal strictures can recur despite multiple dilatation procedures and palliative management can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique and determine the outcome of esophageal stenting for treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES) in dogs. ANIMALS: Nine dogs with RBES. METHODS: Retrospective review of records for dogs with RBES. Indwelling intraluminal esophageal stents were placed transorally with endoscopy, fluoroscopic guidance, or both. Follow-up information was obtained via medical record or telephone interview. RESULTS: Nine dogs had 10 stents placed including biodegradable stents (BDS) (6/10), self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) (3/10), and a self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) (1/10). All dogs had short-term improved dysphagia. Complications included ptyalism, apparent nausea, gagging, vomiting, or regurgitation (8/9), confirmed recurrence of stricture (6/9), stent migration (3/9), stent shortening (1/9), megaesophagus (1/9), incisional infection (1/9), and tracheal-esophageal fistula (1/9). Eight of 9 dogs required intervention because of the complications of which 4 of 8 dogs were eventually euthanized because of stent-related issues. One dog was lost to follow-up examination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Findings suggest that esophageal stent placement was safe and technically effective, but unpredictably tolerated in dogs with RBES. If a stent is placed, dogs should be monitored carefully for stent migration, dissolution of absorbable stents, and recurrence of strictures.