• 1.

    Oechtering G. Diseases of the ears, nose, and throat. In: Ettinger SJ, Feldman EC, Cote E, eds. Textbook of veterinary internal medicine. Vol 1. 8th ed. New York: Saunders Elsevier, 2017;26212640.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Hunt GB, Perkins MC, Foster SF, et al. Nasopharyngeal disorders of dogs and cats: a review and retrospective study. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2002;24:184200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Allen HS, Broussard J, Noone K. Nasopharyngeal diseases in cats: a retrospective study of 53 cases (1991–1998). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1999;35:457461.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Anderson DM, Robinson RK, White RA. Management of inflammatory polyps in 37 cats. Vet Rec 2000;147:684687.

  • 5.

    Khoo AM, Marchevsky AM, Barrs VR, et al. Choanal atresia in a Himalayan cat – first reported case and successful treatment. J Feline Med Surg 2007;9:346349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    De Lorenzi D, Bertoncello D, Comastri S, et al. Treatment of acquired nasopharyngeal stenosis using a removable silicone stent. J Feline Med Surg 2015;17:117124.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Burdick S, Berent AC, Weisse C, et al. Interventional treatment of benign nasopharyngeal stenosis and imperforate nasopharynx in dogs and cats: 46 cases (2005–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253:13001308.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Forster-van Hijfte MA, Groth AM, Emmerson TD. Expansile, inflammatory middle ear disease causing nasopharyngeal obstruction in a cat. J Feline Med Surg 2011;13:451453.

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

    Sula MJM. Tumors and tumorlike lesions of dog and cat ears. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2012;42:11611178.

  • 10.

    Lefebvre J, Kuehn NF, Wortinger A. Computed tomography as an aid in the diagnosis of chronic nasal disease in dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2005;46:280285.

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

    Hunt GB. Effect of breed on anatomy of portosystemic shunts resulting from congenital diseases in dogs and cats: a review of 242 cases. Aust Vet J 2004;82:746749.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Bird L, Nelissen P, White RAS, et al. Treatment of canine nasopharyngeal stenosis using balloon-expandable metallic stents: long-term follow-up of four cases. J Small Anim Pract 2016;57:265270.

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

    Lent SE, Hawkins EC. Evaluation of rhinoscopy and rhinoscopy-assisted mucosal biopsy in diagnosis of nasal disease in dogs: 119 cases (1985–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;201:14251429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Berent AC, Weisse C, Todd K, et al. Use of a balloon-expandable metallic stent for treatment of nasopharyngeal stenosis in dogs and cats: six cases (2005–2007). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:14321440.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Griffon DJ, Tasker S. Use of a mucosal advancement flap for the treatment of nasopharyngeal stenosis in a cat. J Small Anim Pract 2000;41:7173.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Fink L, Jennings M, Reiter AM. Esophagostomy feeding tube placement in the dog and cat. J Vet Dent 2014;31:133138.

  • 17.

    Breheny CR, Boag A, Le Gal A, et al. Esophageal feeding tube placement and the associated complications in 248 cats. J Vet Intern Med 2019;33:13061314.

  • 18.

    Loube DI, Johnson JE, Wiener D, et al. The effect of forceps size on the adequacy of specimens obtained by transbronchial biopsy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;148:14111413.

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

    Perea SC. Critical care nutrition for feline patients. Top Companion Anim Med 2008;23:207215.

  • 20.

    Ireland LM, Hohenhaus AE, Broussard JD, et al. A comparison of owner management and complications in 67 cats with esophagostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:241246.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Nathanson O, McGonigle K, Michel K, et al. Esophagostomy tube complications in dogs and cats: retrospective review of 225 cases. J Vet Intern Med 2019;33:20142019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Wortinger A. Care and use of feeding tubes in dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2006;42:401406.

  • 23.

    Kovaleva J, Peters FTM, van der Mei HC, et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:231254.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Investigation of a retroesophagoscopic approach to nasopharyngoscopy as an alternative to the conventional retroflexed endoscopic approach for selected indications in feline cadavers and client-owned cats

View More View Less
  • 1 From Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA;
  • | 2 From Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4, Canada;
  • | 3 From Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada;
  • | 4 From Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe a retroesophagoscopic approach (ROSA) to nasopharyngoscopy and compare it with the conventional retroflexed endoscopic approach (REA).

ANIMALS

36 feline cadavers and 2 client-owned cats with nasopharyngeal disorders.

PROCEDURES

36 veterinarians participated in the experimental portion of the study involving feline cadavers. Each veterinarian performed the ROSA and REA to nasopharyngoscopy on a feline cadaver once, attempting to identify and biopsy 2 landmarks (soft palate and choanae) with each approach while time was recorded. Numeric scales were used to measure perceived ease of use and image quality for both techniques. Data were compared between approaches by an independent statistician. The ROSA approach was also used as part of the diagnostic workup for the 2 client-owned cats.

RESULTS

35 of the 36 (97%) veterinarians were able to identify and biopsy both landmarks using the ROSA, whereas 21 (58%) veterinarians were able to visualize both landmarks using the REA and 19 (53%) successfully biopsied the landmarks. Image quality for the soft palate was scored higher with the ROSA (median score, 7.5/10) than with the REA (4.5/10). The ROSA was fast and easy to perform. This approach was also successfully performed in the 2 client-owned cats with nasopharyngeal disorders, with no complications reported.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The ROSA was found to be a fast, effective, and easy alternative endoscopic technique for assessment of the nasopharynx in cats. This approach may allow use of various instruments that could be relevant for interventional procedures. However, the ROSA was also invasive and should be considered for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for selected indications only when REA is unsuccessful. (Am J Vet Res 2021;82:752–759)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe a retroesophagoscopic approach (ROSA) to nasopharyngoscopy and compare it with the conventional retroflexed endoscopic approach (REA).

ANIMALS

36 feline cadavers and 2 client-owned cats with nasopharyngeal disorders.

PROCEDURES

36 veterinarians participated in the experimental portion of the study involving feline cadavers. Each veterinarian performed the ROSA and REA to nasopharyngoscopy on a feline cadaver once, attempting to identify and biopsy 2 landmarks (soft palate and choanae) with each approach while time was recorded. Numeric scales were used to measure perceived ease of use and image quality for both techniques. Data were compared between approaches by an independent statistician. The ROSA approach was also used as part of the diagnostic workup for the 2 client-owned cats.

RESULTS

35 of the 36 (97%) veterinarians were able to identify and biopsy both landmarks using the ROSA, whereas 21 (58%) veterinarians were able to visualize both landmarks using the REA and 19 (53%) successfully biopsied the landmarks. Image quality for the soft palate was scored higher with the ROSA (median score, 7.5/10) than with the REA (4.5/10). The ROSA was fast and easy to perform. This approach was also successfully performed in the 2 client-owned cats with nasopharyngeal disorders, with no complications reported.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The ROSA was found to be a fast, effective, and easy alternative endoscopic technique for assessment of the nasopharynx in cats. This approach may allow use of various instruments that could be relevant for interventional procedures. However, the ROSA was also invasive and should be considered for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for selected indications only when REA is unsuccessful. (Am J Vet Res 2021;82:752–759)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Derré (maximederredvm@gmail.com).