# Gastrointestinal Phytobezoars in Small Animals: A Retrospective Study of 18 Cases

## TL;DR

This study examines 18 cases of gastrointestinal phytobezoars in dogs and cats, describing their clinical features, diagnostic challenges, and treatment outcomes.

## Contribution

This is the first study to comprehensively describe predisposing factors, clinical features, and management of gastrointestinal phytobezoars in small animals.

## Key findings

- GIPs were found in various gastrointestinal segments and managed through endoscopic, surgical, or spontaneous resolution methods.
- Radiography and ultrasonography had limited value in definitively diagnosing GIPs due to nonspecific findings.
- GIPs are often underdiagnosed because they present with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms.

## Abstract

A phytobezoar is a compact mass formed by the accumulation of indigestible plant fibers. Gastrointestinal phytobezoars (GIPs) in small animals (dogs and cats) are currently considered an uncommon condition, and the available veterinary literature provides limited information regarding their clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. Medical records of 18 animals diagnosed with GIPs were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate clinical and diagnostic findings. GIPs were identified in various segments of the gastrointestinal tract and were managed using different approaches, including endoscopic removal and surgical intervention, although some cases resolved without the need for treatment. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to describe predisposing factors, clinical and diagnostic features, and therapeutic management of GIPs in dogs and cats.

A phytobezoar is a compact mass formed by the accumulation of indigestible food fibers (such as cellulose and lignin) within the stomach and/or intestine. To date, only limited reports describe the clinical management and diagnostic approach to gastrointestinal phytobezoars (GIPs) in dogs and cats. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features and diagnostic findings obtained through imaging and instrumental investigations in canine and feline cases with GIPs. Medical records of 25 animals diagnosed with GIPs were reviewed, and data on signalment, clinical signs, imaging findings, and follow-up were collected. Seven animals were excluded because the foreign body (FB) consisted of plastic mixed with fibrous material. Eighteen animals (17 dogs and 1 cat) were included: 8 (44.4%) with gastric involvement, 8 (44.4%) with intestinal localization and 2 (11.1%) with both gastric and intestinal localization. The GIP was removed endoscopically in 3 (16.7%) cases, surgically in 7 (38.9%) cases, extracted from the rectal ampulla in 2 (11.1%) cases, and expelled spontaneously through defecation in 6 (33.3%) cases. GIPs are frequently underdiagnosed, as they are associated with nonspecific gastrointestinal signs. Radiography and ultrasonography offer limited diagnostic value, generally suggesting the presence of an FB without definitively confirming it to be GIP. This study contributes to the current literature by detailing the clinical, diagnostic, and interventional features of GIPs in small animals, representing the first report of this condition in veterinary medicine.