Intraocular pressure reference intervals in eyes of clinically normal miniature donkeys (<i>Equus africanus</i>asinus)

Hibbs, Carla D.; Barrett, Paul M.; Dees, D. Dustin

doi:10.1111/vop.12561

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intraocular pressure is known to be lower in infants than in adults and to decrease again with age in humans, dogs, cats, and lions 2,25 . A recent study suggested that IOP may decrease with age also in miniature donkeys 22 . Newborn foals have been reported to have IOP readings similar to adult horses 27,28 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proper evaluation and care of an ophthalmic patient necessitate the ability to interpret IOP readings correctly. Previous studies have demonstrated variation in tonometrically evaluated normal IOP range values in horses and in other animals, and thus, it is mandatory for the clinician to consider the information available for the device used 6‐8,13,21‐24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been initially suggested that AP block could result in more reliable IOP readings in horses by minimizing tension on the globe caused by the eyelids 7,32 . However, more recent studies have repeatedly found AP block to cause no significant effect on the results or have observed a negligible statistical difference assumed to have no clinical relevance 10,22,33 . Nevertheless, in an unsedated horse, holding the upper eyelid open to avoid tonometer probe contact with the eyelid cilia is often required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses

Mustikka

Pietilä²,

Mykkänen

et al. 2020

Veterinary Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To obtain a reference range for evaluation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in horses using Tonovet Plus®, to compare the IOP readings obtained with Tonovet® and Tonovet Plus®, and to evaluate the repeatability of readings. Animals studied and Procedures Intraocular pressure of 30 client‐owned horses (60 eyes) with no signs of illness or ocular disease was evaluated using Tonovet® and Tonovet Plus® rebound tonometers. Horses’ mean age was 10.7 (range 6‐17) years. Triplicate measurements were performed without using sedatives or local anesthetics, with minimal restraint. Results Calculated reference intervals (the CLSI robust method) were 14.4‐27.2 mmHg for Tonovet® and 16.0‐26.1 mmHg for Tonovet Plus®. Mean values (± standard deviation, SD [± coefficient of variation, CV]) obtained with Tonovet Plus® (21.6 ± 2.45 mmHg [11.3%]) were on average 0.6 mmHg higher than with Tonovet® (21.0 ± 3.14 mmHg [15.0%]), and a negligible statistical difference between the devices was found using the paired sample t test (P = .049). The correlation coefficient for the averaged triplicate measurements was 0.73. The average CV was 4.6% and 4.4% for Tonovet® and Tonovet Plus®, respectively. Conclusions The repeatability of measurements was very good with both devices. The readings between the two devices differed statistically significantly, but the correlation was considered good and the variation was numerically small, and thus, the difference was considered clinically irrelevant. When monitoring disease process or treatment response in an individual patient, repeated readings are best performed using a similar device to avoid false interpretation of results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses

Mustikka

Pietilä²,

Mykkänen

et al. 2020

Veterinary Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the intraocular pressure was measured only in those animals displaying signs indicative of uveitis, glaucoma or corneal oedema. Since this study was performed, Hibbs et al16 have recently demonstrated that the presence or absence of sedation and/or an auriculo‐palpebral nerve had no effect on IOP estimates in miniature donkeys. Similarly, a study by Ghaffari et al17 was able to reliably measure intraocular pressure without the use of sedation or nerve blocks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Ghaffari et al17 reported a mean IOP of 17.8 ± 3.7 mm Hg, with a range of 13.5‐24.5 mm Hg, using applanation tonometry in adult donkeys. In another study, Hibbs et al16 reported a mean IOP of 25.75 ± 5.70 mm Hg, with a range of 14.34‐37.15 mm Hg using rebound tonometry in miniature donkeys. No studies to date have reported the reference interval for intraocular pressure measurement in normal adult donkeys using rebound tonometry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The prevalence of uveitis in a population of donkeys in the UK

Bradley¹,

Grundon²,

Sansom

2020

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Uveitis is reported to be a leading cause of blindness in horses. Little work has been undertaken to date to investigate whether donkeys are affected by a similar disease prevalence. Objectives: To investigate the disease prevalence of uveitis in a population of donkeys in the UK. Study design: Descriptive observational study. Methods: An ophthalmic examination was performed on each donkey, in a darkened stable. Each donkey underwent slit lamp biomicroscopy, and direct and/or indirect ophthalmoscopy. Fluorescein staining, STT1 and IOPs were measured when deemed clinically necessary. Pharmacological pupillary dilation was achieved using 1% tropicamide. Results: A total of 207 donkeys were examined: 139 males (67.1%) and 68 females (32.9%). Age range was 2-37 years (median: 17 years, interquartile range: 9-25 years). Three donkeys (1.5%) were blind in one eye, and one was monocular at the time of examination. Signs consistent with either previous or current uveitis were identified in eight eyes of six animals (2.9%). Clinical signs included are as follows: miosis (n = 1), corpora nigra atrophy (n = 6), anterior lens capsule pigment (n = 2), cataract (n = 8), posterior synechiae (n = 3), lens subluxation (n = 1), vitreal changes (n = 2), peripapillary scarring (n = 3) and phthisis bulbi (n = 1). Significant ocular pathology precluded fundic examination in three eyes. Three out of eight eyes (37.5%) were blinded by the pathology. The risk of uveitis was found to increase with age (OR 1.1, CI: 1.01-1.25) on univariable analysis (P = .046.). Main limitations: Fluorescein staining, tonometry and Schirmer tear test measurements were not performed on all donkeys. Conclusions: The disease prevalence reported here is comparable to that reported for horses in the UK. Larger prospective studies are necessary to determine whether there is a similar trend in disease prevalence in the donkey population worldwide. In addition, further investigations should aim to establish whether uveitis in donkeys is similar to the ERU syndrome seen in horses.

show abstract