4.1 Article

A Retrospective Study of Pathology in Bats Submitted to an Exotic and Zoo Animal Diagnostic Service in Georgia, USA (2008-2019)

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PATHOLOGY
Volume 185, Issue -, Pages 96-107

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2021.04.010

Keywords

bat; Chiroptera; pathology; vampire bat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pathology records of bats submitted to the University of Georgia from managed care settings were reviewed to identify naturally occurring diseases. The primary pathological process resulting in death or euthanasia was determined, with non-infectious diseases being the most common among the cases evaluated. Musculoskeletal diseases and reproductive losses were the most frequent pathological processes observed in the study cohort.
Pathology records of bats submitted to the University of Georgia from managed care settings were reviewed to identify naturally occurring diseases. Fifty-nine cases were evaluated during an 11-year period (2008-2019), including representatives from four families: Pteropodidae (Yinpterochiroptera), Phyllostomidae, Vespertilionidae and Molossidae (Yangochiroptera). Pathology reports were reviewed to determine the primary pathological process resulting in death or the decision to euthanize. Cases were categorized as non-infectious (34/59; 58%), infectious/inflammatory (17/59; 29%) or undetermined due to advanced autolysis (8/59; 14%). Musculoskeletal diseases and reproductive losses were the most frequent pathological processes. Among the infectious processes identified, bacterial infections of the reproductive and haemolymphatic systems were most frequently observed. The first two reports of neoplasia in small flying foxes (Pteropus hypomelanus) are described. Bats under managed care present with a wide range of histopathological lesions. In this cohort, non-infectious disease processes were common. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available