Article Text

PDF
Cats
Bladder catheter dislodgement as a complication following placement of a subcutaneous ureteral bypass device
  1. Mariette Pilot,
  2. Cameron Broome,
  3. Gawain Hammond,
  4. Patricia M Ward and
  5. Gerard McLauchlan
  1. Department of Companion Animals, Small Animal Hospital Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mariette Pilot; Pilot.Mariette{at}gmail.com

Abstract

A seven-year-old female, neutered, domestic short-haired cat was presented with right-sided hydroureter and hydronephrosis secondary to ureterolithiasis. A subcutaneous ureteral bypass (SUB) device was placed via mid-line coeliotomy using fluoroscopic assistance. On routine examination 25 months after placement (three months after previous evaluation), urine could not be aspirated from the SUB port, and patency of the cystostomy catheter could not be confirmed under ultrasonographic flushing. Radiographs were performed and showed dislodgement and migration of the bladder catheter from the polyethylene terephthalate (‘Dacron’, Norfolk Vet Products, Skokie, Illinois, USA) cuff. No free abdominal fluid was present, and renal parameters and electrolytes were within normal limits. Fluoroscopic evaluation of the SUB device showed the native ureter was patent. Revision surgery was performed without complication. This complication has not been previously reported with the SUB device.

  • abdominal
  • imaging
  • internal medicine
  • soft tissue surgery
  • urinary tract
  • Received April 18, 2017.
  • Revision received July 18, 2017.
  • Accepted July 25, 2017.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

  • Received April 18, 2017.
  • Revision received July 18, 2017.
  • Accepted July 25, 2017.
View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors MP has written up the case report under supervision of GML (internal medicine diplomate). He helped in writing up the case report. He was involved in the conception of the report, drafting the article, critical revision of the article and gave the final approval of the version to be published. CB is the surgeon involved in the case. He advised the case report from a surgical point of view, including the design, writing and revision. GH is the imager involved in the case, and he advised from an imaging point of view in regard to the writing and the visualisation of the imaging. PMW is the second internal medicine involved who aided and advised in regard to the wording and revision.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All available data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.