Veterinary surgery : VS · 2015
Evaluation of Pharyngeal Function in Dogs with Laryngeal Paralysis Before and After Unilateral Arytenoid Lateralization.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Andrade Natalia, Kent Marc, Howerth Elizabeth W, Radlinsky MaryAnn G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pharyngeal and laryngeal function using esophagography, topical pharyngeal/laryngeal sensitivity testing, and electromyography (EMG) in normal and dogs with idiopathic laryngeal paralysis (ILP) before and after unilateral arytenoid lateralization.
STUDY: Prospective controlled cohort study.
ANIMALS: Dogs with laryngeal paralysis (ILP; n = 8) and age/breed-matched (AB, n = 8) and young breed-matched dogs (B, n = 8) were recruited.
METHODS: Evaluation consisted of esophagography, topical pharyngeal/laryngeal sensitivity testing, and electrodiagnostic testing. Esophagography was performed with liquid and canned phases. Pharyngeal and laryngeal sensitivity was tested by applying a cotton-tipped applicator to the mucosa of pharynx/larynx at anesthetic induction. In all dogs, electrophysiological testing included EMG, direct evoked muscle potentials, motor nerve conduction velocities, and F wave testing. These were performed in the thoracic/pelvic limbs, extrinsic laryngeal muscles, epaxial, and masticatory muscles.
RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal and laryngeal sensitivity testing was decreased in LP dogs compared with age-matched healthy control dogs. Esophagram showed dysmotility in the cranial and caudal esophagus. Gastroesophageal reflux was significantly higher in ILP dogs compared with the other 2 groups (P < .03). In all affected dogs, EMG abnormalities were limited to the interosseous muscles of both pelvic and thoracic limbs bilaterally.
CONCLUSION: Dogs with ILP not only have recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) and pararecurrent laryngeal nerve (pRLN) dysfunction, but may also have concurrent cranial laryngeal nerve dysfunction.
STUDY: Prospective controlled cohort study.
ANIMALS: Dogs with laryngeal paralysis (ILP; n = 8) and age/breed-matched (AB, n = 8) and young breed-matched dogs (B, n = 8) were recruited.
METHODS: Evaluation consisted of esophagography, topical pharyngeal/laryngeal sensitivity testing, and electrodiagnostic testing. Esophagography was performed with liquid and canned phases. Pharyngeal and laryngeal sensitivity was tested by applying a cotton-tipped applicator to the mucosa of pharynx/larynx at anesthetic induction. In all dogs, electrophysiological testing included EMG, direct evoked muscle potentials, motor nerve conduction velocities, and F wave testing. These were performed in the thoracic/pelvic limbs, extrinsic laryngeal muscles, epaxial, and masticatory muscles.
RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal and laryngeal sensitivity testing was decreased in LP dogs compared with age-matched healthy control dogs. Esophagram showed dysmotility in the cranial and caudal esophagus. Gastroesophageal reflux was significantly higher in ILP dogs compared with the other 2 groups (P < .03). In all affected dogs, EMG abnormalities were limited to the interosseous muscles of both pelvic and thoracic limbs bilaterally.
CONCLUSION: Dogs with ILP not only have recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) and pararecurrent laryngeal nerve (pRLN) dysfunction, but may also have concurrent cranial laryngeal nerve dysfunction.