Retrospective comparison of short-term outcomes following thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy for surgical correction of persistent right aortic arch in dogs.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

OBJECTIVE To evaluate thoracoscopy as a treatment for dogs with persistent right aortic arch (PRAA) and to compare intra- and postoperative complications and short-term outcomes of dogs that underwent thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy for treatment of PRAA. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. ANIMALS 30 dogs (24 client-owned and 6 shelter-owned) that had undergone thoracoscopy or thoracotomy for treatment of PPRA between 1998 and 2015. PROCEDURES Medical records were reviewed retrospectively, and data were compared between dogs that underwent thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy. For dogs that underwent thoracoscopy, linear regression was performed to compare duration of surgery with sequential order of thoracoscopies. RESULTS Dogs underwent a thoracotomy alone (n = 15), thoracoscopy alone (10), or thoracoscopy converted to thoracotomy (5) for treatment of PRAA. Median duration of surgery was not markedly different among groups, nor was the incidence of postoperative complications or median amount of time a thoracostomy tube was maintained in place. Median duration of hospitalization was 1 day (range, 0.5 to 2 days) for dogs that underwent thoracoscopy and 2 days (range, 0.5 to 22 days) for dogs that underwent thoracotomy or in which thoracoscopy was converted to a thoracotomy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Thoracoscopy was found to be an acceptable method for treating dogs with PRAA and was not associated with higher morbidity or mortality rates, compared with thoracotomy.