CT findings in 20 dogs and six cats with confirmed nasal foreign bodies

Abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of nasal foreign bodies usually includes a combination of rhinoscopy and imaging techniques, such as CT. The purpose of this retrospective, multicenter study was to describe the CT characteristics of nasal foreign bodies in dogs and cats and to determine if different nasal CT features exist between acute and chronic cases. Twenty dogs and six cats met the inclusion criteria. Eleven nasal foreign bodies (42%) were detected confidently with CT. The foreign body had a linear shape in 81% of cases and displayed a “tubular‐like appearance” in 54% of cases. In five cases (19%), a foreign body was suspected but not clearly visible. Additional CT changes were present in the nasal passages in 96% of the cases. The presence of turbinate destruction (P = .021) and mucosal thickening (P = .014) on CT were associated with the presence of a chronic nasal foreign body. In this sample, the nature of the foreign body did not influence its visibility and was not associated with specific CT characteristics. Computed tomography may be useful in the investigation of nasal foreign bodies, however, a negative CT examination does not exclude their presence.

Nasal foreign bodies identified by rhinoscopy in dogs: 42 cases

“…The findings of this study are consistent with historical reports that sneezing is the most common clinical sign associated with nasal FB (Plickert et al 2014, Vansteenkiste et al 2014, Moreno-Aguado et al 2019. Epistaxis and nasal discharge are also common (Aronson 2004, Plickert et al 2014, Vansteenkiste et al 2014, Moreno-Aguado et al 2019. The type of nasal discharge observed in this study, with an overrepresentation of mucopurulent discharge, is also consistent with previous studies (Aronson 2004, Lobetti 2009, Plickert et al 2014.…”

“…Also this finding could just represent the average of dogs presented to veterinary clinics. The findings of this study are consistent with historical reports that sneezing is the most common clinical sign associated with nasal FB (Plickert et al 2014, Vansteenkiste et al 2014, Moreno-Aguado et al 2019. Epistaxis and nasal discharge are also common (Aronson 2004, Plickert et al 2014, Vansteenkiste et al 2014, Moreno-Aguado et al 2019.…”

“…Rhinoscopy is a non-invasive means of examining the upper airway that allows for direct visualisation of the nasal cavities as well as guided biopsies (Tasker et al 1999;Lhermette & Sobel 2008;Lobetti 2009;Schawke 2012). Rhinoscopy has been found superior to CT in the identification of nasal FBs (Moreno-Aguado et al 2019) and, unlike CT, rhinoscopy offers the means to remove them (Aronson 2004, Jones & Ober 2007, Lhermette & Sobel 2008.…”

Computed tomography and cross‐sectional anatomy of the head in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

“…CT can be used to determine the size and extension of benign and malignant neoplasms of the nasal zygomatic bone, Zʹ. temporal process of zygomatic bone, 1. nuchal crest, 2. external sagittal crest, 3. temporal line, 4. temporal fossa, 5. ectoturbinates, 6. frontal septum, 7. nasal aperture, 8. external acoustic orifice, 9. orbital lamina of ethmoid bone, 10. maxillary nerve, 11. maxillary foramen, 12. maxillary artery, 13. upper incisor teeth and 14. upper canine tooth cavity and paranasal sinuses in dogs (Auler et al, 2015) and detect nasal foreign bodies (Moreno-Aguado et al, 2019). Moreover, CT is more sensitive than conventional radiography for diagnosing nasal aspergillosis in dogs .…”

“…Therefore, CT imaging is a favourable definitive diagnostic method of upper airway obstruction and nasal diseases in dogs (Lefebvre, Kuehn, & Wortinger, 2005; Stadler, Hartman, Matheson, & O'brien, 2011). CT can be used to determine the size and extension of benign and malignant neoplasms of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in dogs (Auler et al., 2015) and detect nasal foreign bodies (Moreno‐Aguado et al., 2019). Moreover, CT is more sensitive than conventional radiography for diagnosing nasal aspergillosis in dogs (Saunders & Van Bree, 2003).…”