3.9 Article

Suppurative infectious diseases of the central nervous system in domestic ruminants

期刊

PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 820-828

出版社

REVISTA PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-736X2017000800007

关键词

Infectious diseases; central nervous system; diseases of ruminants; neuropathology; suppurative meningitis; listeriosis; cerebral and spinal cord abscesses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes suppurative infectious diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) in domestic ruminants of southern Brazil. Reports from 3.274 cattle, 596 sheep and 391 goats were reviewed, of which 219 cattle, 21 sheep and 7 goats were diagnosed with central nervous system inflammatory diseases. Suppurative infectious diseases of the CNS corresponded to 54 cases (28 cattle, 19 sheep and 7 goats). The conditions observed consisted of listerial meningoencephalitis (8 sheep, 5 goats and 4 cattle), suppurative leptomeningitis and meningoencephalitis (14 cattle, 2 goats and 1 sheep), cerebral (6 cattle and 2 sheep), and spinal cord (7 sheep) abscesses, and basilar empyema (4 cattle and 1 sheep). Bacterial culture identified Listeria monocytogenes (9/54 cases), Escherichia coli (7/54 cases), Trueperella pyogenes (6/54 cases) and Proteus mirabilis (1/54 cases). All cases diagnosed as listeriosis through histopathology yielded positive immunostaining on immunohistochemistry, while 12/17 of the cases of suppurative leptomeningitis and meningoencephalitis presented positive immunostaining for Escherichia coli. Meningoencephalitis by L. monocytogenes was the main neurological disease in sheep and goats, followed by spinal cord abscesses in sheep. In cattle, leptomeningitis and suppurative meningoencephalitis was the most frequent neurological disease for the species, and E. coli was the main cause of these lesions. Basilar empyema, mainly diagnosed in cattle, is related to traumatic injuries, mainly in the nasal cavity, and the main etiologic agent was T. pyogenes.

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

3.9
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