The Journal of small animal practice · 2017
How useful is abdominal ultrasonography in dogs with diarrhoea?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mapletoft E K, Allenspach K, Lamb C R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of abdominal ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of dogs with diarrhoea.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study based on a referral population of dogs with diarrhoea. Associations between the clinical signs, use of abdominal ultrasonography, results of abdominal ultrasonography and subsequent work-up were examined. The utility of abdominal ultrasonography was scored as high, moderate, none or counterproductive based on review of medical records.
RESULTS: Medical records of 269 dogs were reviewed, of which 149 (55%) had abdominal ultrasonography. The most frequent result was no ultrasonographic abnormalities affecting the intestine in 65 (44%) dogs. Ultrasonography results were associated with subsequent work-up as follows: (1) no detected abnormalities and dietary trial; (2) focal thickening of the intestinal wall, loss of intestinal wall layers or enlarged abdominal lymph nodes and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates; (3) diffuse thickening of the intestinal wall or hyperechoic striations in the small intestinal mucosa and endoscopy; and (4) small intestinal foreign body and coeliotomy. Abdominal ultrasonography was considered to be diagnostic without further testing in only four (3%) dogs: two had a portosystemic shunt identified ultrasonographically, one had a linear foreign body and one had a perforated pyloric ulcer. Abdominal ultrasonography had moderate utility in 56 (38%) dogs and no utility in 79 (53%) dogs. Abdominal ultrasonography was considered counterproductive in 10 (7%) dogs because results were either falsely negative or falsely positive.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These results should prompt clinicians to reconsider routine use of abdominal ultrasonography in dogs with diarrhoea.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study based on a referral population of dogs with diarrhoea. Associations between the clinical signs, use of abdominal ultrasonography, results of abdominal ultrasonography and subsequent work-up were examined. The utility of abdominal ultrasonography was scored as high, moderate, none or counterproductive based on review of medical records.
RESULTS: Medical records of 269 dogs were reviewed, of which 149 (55%) had abdominal ultrasonography. The most frequent result was no ultrasonographic abnormalities affecting the intestine in 65 (44%) dogs. Ultrasonography results were associated with subsequent work-up as follows: (1) no detected abnormalities and dietary trial; (2) focal thickening of the intestinal wall, loss of intestinal wall layers or enlarged abdominal lymph nodes and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates; (3) diffuse thickening of the intestinal wall or hyperechoic striations in the small intestinal mucosa and endoscopy; and (4) small intestinal foreign body and coeliotomy. Abdominal ultrasonography was considered to be diagnostic without further testing in only four (3%) dogs: two had a portosystemic shunt identified ultrasonographically, one had a linear foreign body and one had a perforated pyloric ulcer. Abdominal ultrasonography had moderate utility in 56 (38%) dogs and no utility in 79 (53%) dogs. Abdominal ultrasonography was considered counterproductive in 10 (7%) dogs because results were either falsely negative or falsely positive.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These results should prompt clinicians to reconsider routine use of abdominal ultrasonography in dogs with diarrhoea.