4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of ultrasonographic characteristics of the thyroid gland in healthy small-, medium-, and large-breed dogs

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 70-77

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.67.1.70

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine ultrasonographic characteristics of the thyroid gland in healthy small-, medium-, and large-breed dogs and evaluate the relationships of thyroid gland size and volume with body weight and body surface area (BSA). Animals-72 dogs of small (6 Toy and 6 Miniature Poodles), medium (12 Beagles), and large breeds (12 Akitas and 36 Golden Retrievers). Procedure-Each dog's thyroid gland was examined ultrasonographically with a 10- to 5-MHz multifrequency linear-array transducer. Size, shape, echogenicity, and homogeneity of thyroid lobes were evaluated on longitudinal and transverse images. Thyroid lobe volume was estimated by use of the equation for an ellipsoid (pi/6 [length X height X width]). Results-Thyroid lobes appeared fusiform or elliptical on longitudinal images and triangular or round to oval on transverse images. In most dogs, thyroid lobes were hyperechoic or isoechoic, compared with surrounding musculature, and had a homogeneous echogenic pattern. Mean length, width, height, and volume of thyroid lobes were significantly greater in Akitas and Golden Retrievers, compared with findings in Beagles or Poodles; mean length, width, and height were significantly greater in Beagles, compared with findings in Poodles. Total thyroid gland volume correlated with body weight (r = 0.73) and BSA (r = 0.74). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Among the dog breeds examined ultrasonographically, thyroid lobe size and volume were more variable than shape, echogenicity, and homogeneity. The correlation of thyroid gland volume with BSA suggests that size of the dog, rather than breed, should be considered when assessing thyroid glands ultrasonographically.

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

4.1
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