Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2021
Comparison of the use of a standard cytology brush versus a mini cytology brush to obtain conjunctival samples for cytologic examination in healthy dogs.
СтатьяRandomized Controlled Trial, VeterinaryНазвание 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.
Ripolles-Garcia Ana, Sanz Alba, Pastor Josep, Abarca Eva M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of conjunctival samples for cytologic examination obtained with 2 conjunctival exfoliative brushes, a mini cytology brush (MCB) and a standard cytology brush (SCB), in healthy dogs.
ANIMALS: 20 client-owned dogs that were free of ocular disease.
PROCEDURES: A prospective single-center randomized trial was performed. For each dog, conjunctival samples of the right eye were obtained with the 2 brushes (ie, SCB or MCB) at 2 time points that were 5 to 11 days apart. The left eye was used as a control. Cytologic quality of conjunctival samples was scored on the basis of cellularity, clearness of background, uniformity of distribution of cells on the cytology slide, artifacts, cellular overlapping, cell preservation, presence of mucus on the cytology slide, and number of RBCs.
RESULTS: On cytologic evaluation, conjunctival samples collected with an SCB scored significantly better in terms of higher cellularity, less background debris, and more uniformity in the distribution of cells, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an MCB. Conjunctival samples collected with an MCB scored significantly better in terms of less cellular overlapping and less mucus in the background, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an SCB.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall conjunctival samples obtained with an SCB for cytologic evaluation had better diagnostic quality, compared with conjunctival samples obtained with an MCB. Use of an MCB, however, was advantageous to access localized conjunctival areas as well as collect conjunctival samples from patients with small palpebral fissures.
ANIMALS: 20 client-owned dogs that were free of ocular disease.
PROCEDURES: A prospective single-center randomized trial was performed. For each dog, conjunctival samples of the right eye were obtained with the 2 brushes (ie, SCB or MCB) at 2 time points that were 5 to 11 days apart. The left eye was used as a control. Cytologic quality of conjunctival samples was scored on the basis of cellularity, clearness of background, uniformity of distribution of cells on the cytology slide, artifacts, cellular overlapping, cell preservation, presence of mucus on the cytology slide, and number of RBCs.
RESULTS: On cytologic evaluation, conjunctival samples collected with an SCB scored significantly better in terms of higher cellularity, less background debris, and more uniformity in the distribution of cells, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an MCB. Conjunctival samples collected with an MCB scored significantly better in terms of less cellular overlapping and less mucus in the background, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an SCB.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall conjunctival samples obtained with an SCB for cytologic evaluation had better diagnostic quality, compared with conjunctival samples obtained with an MCB. Use of an MCB, however, was advantageous to access localized conjunctival areas as well as collect conjunctival samples from patients with small palpebral fissures.