4.2 Article

Practice patterns in the management of acute intervertebral disc herniation in dogs

期刊

JOURNAL OF SMALL ANIMAL PRACTICE
卷 57, 期 8, 页码 409-415

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jsap.12496

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ohio State University
  2. University of Bern
  3. North Carolina State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Acute intervertebral disc herniation is commonly managed by veterinary neurologists and surgeons. Anecdote suggests that patterns of management vary considerably and there is controversy surrounding many aspects of treatment. The goal of this study was to document patterns in management of acute spinal cord injury caused by acute intervertebral disc herniation among these two groups to aid in future discussions on best practices. Methods A survey querying diagnostic, medical and surgical practices for dogs with acute intervertebral disc herniation was distributed to diplomates on the databases of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (Neurology). Results Responses were received from 314 board-certified veterinary surgeons and neurologists. Both groups handled timing of decompression, surgical approach, and most postoperative recommendations in a similar fashion. Case volume differed between groups, with 77% of neurologists and 18% of surgeons managing e50 cases of acute intervertebral disc herniation per year. MRI was used most frequently as a diagnostic tool by neurologists (75%), while CT was used most commonly by surgeons (58%). Corticosteroids were routinely administered as a neuroprotective strategy by 34% of surgeons and 11% of neurologists. Disc fenestration was performed always or most of the time by 69% of neurologists and 36% of surgeons. Clinical Importance Understanding the common practices in the management of canine acute intervertebral disc herniation can provide a springboard for future discussions regarding the best practices in diagnosing and treating this disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据