4.2 Article

Ultrasound evaluation of small bowel thickness compared to weight in normal dogs

Journal

VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages 577-580

Publisher

AMER COLL VETERINARY RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2003.tb00510.x

Keywords

dog; gastrointestinal ultrasound; intestine; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of ultrasound to measure small bowel thickness is an important part of any ultrasound examination of the abdomen. Increased thickness of the intestinal wall is a hallmark for the detection of diseases ranging from inflammatory bowel disease to neoplasia. Our subjective impression has been that dogs with no clinical signs of gastrointestinal disease often have sonographic measurements greater than published norms. The purpose of this study was to prospectively reevaluate these norms. The clinical history on all dogs receiving an abdominal ultrasound examination was evaluated for signs of gastrointestinal disease. Those without clinical signs were entered into this study. The documentation of body weight, breed, jejunal thickness, and duodenal thickness was made in 231 dogs. Dogs were placed into five groups based on their weight. Sixty-nine breeds were represented with weight ranging from 2.1 to 64 kg. A statistically significant (P less than or equal to 0.05) correlation between body weight and both jejunal and duodenal thickness was observed. We also found that the maximum thickness in both jejunum and duodenum in healthy dogs was larger than previously reported. These data indicate norms for the jejunum of less than or equal to4.1 mm for dogs up to 20 kg, less than or equal to4.4 mm for dogs between 20 and 39.9 kg, and less than or equal to4.7 mm for dogs over 40 kg. The data indicate norms for the duodenum less than or equal to5.1 mm for dogs up to 20 kg, less than or equal to5.3 kg for dogs between 20 and 29.9 kg, and less than or equal to6.0 mm for dogs over 30 kg.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available