Evaluation of Thoracoscopic Pericardial Window Size and Execution Time in Dogs: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches
by
,
Francesco Macrì
1, 
Vito Angileri
1,
Claudia Giannetto
1,
Lorenzo Scaletta
2,
Piero Miele
2,
Loris Pazzaglia
3 and
Simona Di Pietro
1,* 1
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, Viale Palatucci, 98168 Messina, Italy
2
Veterinaria Enterprise Stp S.R.L., Via Galvani 33d, 00153 Rome, Italy
3
Clinica Veterinaria Galilei, Via B. Franklin 22, 59100 Prato, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(5), 1438; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051438
Submission received: 7 March 2021
/
Revised: 17 April 2021
/
Accepted: 29 April 2021
/
Published: 18 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Veterinary Minimally Invasive Surgery)
Simple Summary
This canine prospective study was performed to statistically compare the surgery time and achieved windows size of two different thoracoscopic pericardiectomy techniques in dogs affected by pericardial effusion, using transdiaphragmatic paraxyphoid and monolateral intercostal approaches. The paraxifoid and the monolateral intercostal approaches showed a mean surgical time of 55 ± 20.08 (SD) minutes and 13.94 ± 4.61 (SD) minutes, and a mean pericardial window diameter of 4.23 ± 0.80 (SD) cm and 3.31 ± 0.43 (SD) cm, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between the dogs’ bodyweight and window size (r = 0.48; p = 0.04) for both surgical approaches, and between the dogs’ bodyweight and surgical time (r = 0.72; p = 0.0016) for monolateral intercostal approach. Our results provided useful information to help surgeons make the definitive choice of the surgical technique to treat the pericardial effusion.
Abstract
Pericardial effusion presents clinicians with a challenge when diagnosing the underlying cause and performing a prognosis. Different techniques have been suggested for canine thoracoscopic pericardiectomy with the creation of variable pericardial window size. The aim of this study was to statistically compare the surgical time and achieved window size of the paraxiphoid transdiaphragmatic and monolateral intercostal approaches. The paraxifoid and monolateral intercostal approaches showed a mean surgical time of 55 ± 20.08 (SD) minutes and 13.94 ± 4.61 (SD) minutes, and a mean pericardial window diameter of 4.23 ± 0.80 (SD) cm and 3.31 ± 0.43 (SD) cm, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between the dogs’ bodyweight and window size (r = 0.48; p = 0.04) for both surgical approaches, and between the dogs’ bodyweight and surgical time (r = 0.72; p = 0.0016) for monolateral intercostal approach. All treated dogs showed no clinical signs of recurrent cardiac tamponade during the follow-up. Our results provided useful information to help surgeons make the definitive choice of the surgical technique to treat the pericardial effusion.
Keywords:
canine; heart; pericardium; thoracoscopy
