Editorial Type:
Ophthalmology

Evaluation of nasolacrimal fluorescein transit time in ophthalmically normal dogs and nonbrachycephalic cats

Daniel R. Binder Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech and University of Maryland, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

Search for other papers by Daniel R. Binder in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
and
Ian P. Herring Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech and University of Maryland, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

Search for other papers by Ian P. Herring in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, MS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.71.5.570
Volume/Issue:
Volume 71: Issue 5
Online Publication Date:
01 May 2010
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate fluorescein nasolacrimal transit (NLT) times in ophthalmically normal dogs and nonbrachycephalic cats by use of 2 methods of the Jones test.

Animals—73 dogs and 36 cats.

Procedures—Fluorescein dye was applied to the ocular surface of both eyes by means of a wetted fluorescein strip and, in a subsequent test, by administration of a drop of 0.2% fluorescein solution. During each test, the nares were monitored for the appearance of fluorescein for up to 30 minutes after application. Time of fluorescein appearance at the nares was recorded as NLT time. Recorded variables for all study animals included age, reproductive status, body weight, and Schirmer tear test values. For dogs, skull index, snout length, and cephalic conformation were also recorded. Data were grouped for statistical comparisons according to test results.

Results—In both dogs and cats, NLT was faster when the fluorescein solution versus fluorescein strip was used. In cats, none of the recorded variables had a significant effect on NLT, irrespective of the testing method used. In dogs, several variables had a significant effect on NLT, including cephalic conformation, snout length, age, and reproductive status, but these findings varied with testing method and testing group.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—NLT was highly variable in dogs and cats, regardless of testing method used. Assessment of nasolacrimal patency in brachycephalic dogs by use of either method evaluated here is not likely to be clinically useful. In cats, assessment of nasolacrimal patency with the fluorescein drop method was faster and more conclusive than with the fluorescein strip method.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate fluorescein nasolacrimal transit (NLT) times in ophthalmically normal dogs and nonbrachycephalic cats by use of 2 methods of the Jones test.

Animals—73 dogs and 36 cats.

Procedures—Fluorescein dye was applied to the ocular surface of both eyes by means of a wetted fluorescein strip and, in a subsequent test, by administration of a drop of 0.2% fluorescein solution. During each test, the nares were monitored for the appearance of fluorescein for up to 30 minutes after application. Time of fluorescein appearance at the nares was recorded as NLT time. Recorded variables for all study animals included age, reproductive status, body weight, and Schirmer tear test values. For dogs, skull index, snout length, and cephalic conformation were also recorded. Data were grouped for statistical comparisons according to test results.

Results—In both dogs and cats, NLT was faster when the fluorescein solution versus fluorescein strip was used. In cats, none of the recorded variables had a significant effect on NLT, irrespective of the testing method used. In dogs, several variables had a significant effect on NLT, including cephalic conformation, snout length, age, and reproductive status, but these findings varied with testing method and testing group.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—NLT was highly variable in dogs and cats, regardless of testing method used. Assessment of nasolacrimal patency in brachycephalic dogs by use of either method evaluated here is not likely to be clinically useful. In cats, assessment of nasolacrimal patency with the fluorescein drop method was faster and more conclusive than with the fluorescein strip method.

Contributor Notes

Presented at the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, Kona, Hawaii, October 2007.

The authors thank Dr. Stephen Werre for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Address correspondence to Dr. Herring (iherring@vt.edu).
Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Publication Date:
01 May 2010
  • 1.

    Murphy CJ, Pollock RVS. The eye. In: Evans HE, ed. Miller's anatomy of the dog. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1993;1009–1057.

  • 2.

    Michel G. Beitrag zur Anatomie der Tranenorgane von Hunde und Katze. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1955;62:347–349.

  • 3.

    Gelatt KN. Surgery of the nasolacrimal apparatus and tear systems. In: Gelatt KN, ed. Small animal ophthalmic surgery. Woburn, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001;125–141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Grahn BH, Sandmeyer LS. Diseases and surgery of the canine nasolacrimal system. In: Gelatt KN, ed. Veterinary ophthalmology. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2007;618–632.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Martin CL. Ophthalmic pharmacology. In: Ophthalmic disease in veterinary medicine. London: Manson Publishing, 2005;41–70.

  • 6.

    Severin GA. Lacrimal apparatus. In: Severin's veterinary ophthalmology notes. 3rd ed. Fort Collins, Colo: 1995;223–248.

  • 7.

    Ollivier FJ, Plummer CE, Barrie KP. Ophthalmic examination and diagnostics. Part 1: the eye examination and diagnostic procedures. In: Gelatt KN, ed. Veterinary ophthalmology. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2007;438–483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Maggs DJ. Basic diagnostic techniques. In: Maggs DJ, Miller PE, Ofri R, eds. Slatter's fundamentals of veterinary ophthalmology. 4th ed. St Louis: Saunders Elsevier, 2008;81–106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Evans HE. The skeleton. In: Evans HE, ed. Miller's anatomy of the dog. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1993;122–218.

  • 10.

    Breit S, Kunzel W, Oppel M. The course of the nasolacrimal duct in brachycephalic cats. Anat Histol Embryol 2003;32:224–227.

  • 11.

    Kern TJ. Disorders of the lacrimal system. In: Kirk RW, ed. Current veterinary therapy IX. Philadephia: WB Saunders Co, 1986;634–641.

  • 12.

    Martin CL. Lacrimal system. Ophthalmic disease in veterinary medicine. London: Manson Publishing, 2005;219–240.

  • 13.

    Jones LT. An anatomical approach to problems of the eyelids and lacrimal apparatus. Arch Ophthalmol 1961;66:111–124.

  • 14.

    Hornblass A, Ingis TM. Lacrimal function tests. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;97:1654–1655.

  • 15.

    Hagele JE, Guzek JP, Shavlik GW. Lacrimal testing. Age as a factor in Jones testing. Ophthalmology 1994;101:612–617.

  • 16.

    Zappia RJ, Milder B. Lacrimal drainage function. 1. The Jones fluorescein test. Am J Ophthalmol 1972;74:154–159.

  • 17.

    Guzek JP, Ching AS, Hoang TA, et alClinical and radiologic lacrimal testing in patients with epiphora. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1875–1881.

  • 18.

    O'Donnell BA, Clement CI. Assessing patients with epiphora who are patent to syringing: clinical predictors of response to dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:173–178.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Tucker NA, Codère F. The effect of fluorescein volume on lacrimal outflow transit time. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;10:256–259.

Advertisement