3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Demographic and clinical characteristics of geriatric horses: 467 cases (1989-1999)

Journal

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.93

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of a population of geriatric horses. Design-Retrospective study. Animals-467 horses that were greater than or equal to 20 years of age. Procedure-Medical records of 539 geriatric horses that were evaluated at a university large animal hospital between 1989 and 1999 were reviewed. Data collected included signalment, reason for evaluation, specific diagnoses, surgical procedures, inpatient or outpatient care, duration of hospitalization, and outcome. Results-467 horses met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Horses that were greater than or equal to 20 years of age comprised 2.2 and 12.5% of horses evaluated during 1989 and 1999, respectively. Pony breeds were significantly overrepresented in the greater than or equal to 30-years-of-age group. Gastrointestinal tract, musculoskeletal, and respiratory tract problems were most frequently reported. Colic was the most common clinical sign, followed by lameness. Diagnoses made most frequently included pituitary dysfunction, strangulating lipoma of the small intestine, laminitis, heaves, large colon impaction, and gastric ulcers. Pituitary dysfunction was significantly more prevalent in horses that were > 30 years of age. Laminitis was significantly associated with the presence of pituitary dysfunction. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-It was difficult to assess association of age with illnesses identified in these horses. Demographic data and information regarding common diseases of horses that are greater than or equal to 20 years of age are limited but will become increasingly important as this geriatric population increases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available