• 1.

    Nyland TG, Mattoon JS. Gastrointestinal tract. In: Mattoon JS, Nyland TG, eds. Small animal diagnostic ultrasound. 3rd ed. St Louis: Saunders, 2015;468500.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Penninck D, d’Anjou M-A. Gastrointestinal tract. In: Penninck D, d’Anjou M-A, eds. Atlas of small animal ultrasonography. 2nd ed. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons, 2015;259308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Larson MM, Biller DS. Ultrasound of the gastrointestinal tract. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2009;39:747759.

  • 4.

    Hotz Kaser B, Hauser B, Arnold P. Ultrasonographic findings in canine gastric neoplasia in 13 patients. Vet Radiol Ultra-sound 1996;37:5156.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Webb C, Twedt DC. Canine gastritis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2003;33:969985.

  • 6.

    Maconi G, Radice E, Bareggi E, et al. Hydrosonography of the gastrointestinal tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:700708.

  • 7.

    Badea R, Ciobanu L, Gomotirceanu A, et al. Contrast ultrasonography of the digestive tract lumen. Review of the literature and personal experience. Med Ultrason 2010;12:5261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Ishigami K, Abu-Yousef DM, Kao SC, et al. Comparison of 2 oral ultrasonography contrast agents: simethicone-coated cellulose and simethicone-water rotation in improving pancreatic visualization. Ultrasound Q 2014;30:135138.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Quaia E. Classification and safety of microbubble-based contrast agents. In: Quaia E, ed. Contrast media in ultrasonography. Berlin: Springer, 2005;314.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M, et al. Oral contrast enhanced bowel ultrasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn's disease. A prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, x ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy. Gut 2004;53:16521657.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Eckersley RJ, et al. Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 2001;11:675689.

  • 12.

    Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994;6:284290.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Terragni R, Vignoli M, Rossi F, et al. Stomach wall evaluation using helical hydro-computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultra-sound 2012;53:402405.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Penninck DG, Nyland TG, Fisher PE, et al. Ultrasonography of the normal canine gastrointestinal tract. Vet Radiol 1989;30:272276.

  • 15.

    Gory G, Rault DN, Gatel L, et al. Ultrasonographic characteristics of the abdominal esophagus and cardia in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2014;55:552560.

  • 16.

    Hoey S, Drees R, Hetzel S. Evaluation of the gastrointestinal tract in dogs using computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultra-sound 2013;54:2530.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Gladwin NE, Penninck DG, Webster CRL. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the thickness of the wall layers in the intestinal tract of dogs. Am J Vet Res 2014;75:349353.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Kimmey MB, Martin RW, Haggitt RC, et al. Histologic correlates of gastrointestinal ultrasound images. Gastroenterology 1989;96:433441.

Advertisement

Efficacy of a phospholipid-stabilized sulfur hexafluoride microsphere contrast agent and water for hydrosonography of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract in dogs

Seungjo Park DVM, PhD1, Jin-Woo Jung DVM1, Seolyn Jang DVM1, Bo-Kwon Choi DVM1, Eunji Lee DVM1, Suhyun Lee DVM1, and Jihye Choi DVM, PhD1
View More View Less
  • 1 From the College of Veterinary Medicine and BK21 Plus Project Team, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of a phospholipid-stabilized sulfur hexafluoride microsphere (SHM) contrast agent and water for hydrosonography of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract of dogs.

ANIMALS

12 healthy adult Beagles.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study, each dog was anesthetized and underwent noncontrast ultrasonography then hydrosonography following administration of tap water (30 mL/kg) without (water method) or with SHM (0.1 mL; SHM method) via an orogastric tube. There were at least 3 days between hydro-sonographic procedures. Wall thickness, wall layer definition, conspicuity of the mucosal-luminal interface, and image quality were evaluated separately in the near and far fields for the gastric cardia, body, and pylorus and descending duodenum and compared among the 3 scanning methods.

RESULTS

Mean wall thickness measurements did not differ significantly between the water and SHM methods at any location except the far-field gastric cardia where the mean wall thickness for the SHM method was less than that for the water method. In general, the SHM method improved wall layer definition and conspicuity of the mucosal-luminal interface of structures in the near field, compared with noncontrast method. The water and SHM methods both resulted in superior image quality relative to the noncontrast method for the near-field gastric cardia, far-field gastric cardia, and far-field duodenum.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that, for dogs, gastrointestinal hydrosonography by use of the SHM method improved wall layer definition and mucosal conspicuity, particularly in near-field images of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract. (Am J Vet Res 2021;82:712–721)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of a phospholipid-stabilized sulfur hexafluoride microsphere (SHM) contrast agent and water for hydrosonography of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract of dogs.

ANIMALS

12 healthy adult Beagles.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study, each dog was anesthetized and underwent noncontrast ultrasonography then hydrosonography following administration of tap water (30 mL/kg) without (water method) or with SHM (0.1 mL; SHM method) via an orogastric tube. There were at least 3 days between hydro-sonographic procedures. Wall thickness, wall layer definition, conspicuity of the mucosal-luminal interface, and image quality were evaluated separately in the near and far fields for the gastric cardia, body, and pylorus and descending duodenum and compared among the 3 scanning methods.

RESULTS

Mean wall thickness measurements did not differ significantly between the water and SHM methods at any location except the far-field gastric cardia where the mean wall thickness for the SHM method was less than that for the water method. In general, the SHM method improved wall layer definition and conspicuity of the mucosal-luminal interface of structures in the near field, compared with noncontrast method. The water and SHM methods both resulted in superior image quality relative to the noncontrast method for the near-field gastric cardia, far-field gastric cardia, and far-field duodenum.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that, for dogs, gastrointestinal hydrosonography by use of the SHM method improved wall layer definition and mucosal conspicuity, particularly in near-field images of the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract. (Am J Vet Res 2021;82:712–721)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Jihye Choi (imsono@chonnam.ac.kr).