• 1.

    Donnelly TM, Brown CJ. Guinea pig and chinchilla care and husbandry. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 2004;7:351373.

  • 2.

    Williams DL. Laboratory animal ophthalmology. In: Gelatt KN, ed. Veterinary ophthalmology. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007;13361369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Trost K, Skalicky M, Nell B. Schirmer tear test, phenol red thread tear test, eye blink frequency and corneal sensitivity in the guinea pig. Vet Ophthalmol 2007;10:143146.

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

    Brown MH, Galland JC, Davidson HJ, et al. The phenol red thread tear test in dogs. Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1996;6:274277.

  • 5.

    Cullen CL. Normal ocular features, conjunctival microflora and intraocular pressure in the Canadian beaver (Castor canadensis). Vet Ophthalmol 2003;6:279284.

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

    Barrett PM, Scagliotti RH, Merideth RE, et al. Absolute corneal sensitivity and corneal trigeminal nerve anatomy in normal dogs. Prog Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1991;1:245254.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Brooks DE, Clark CK, Lester GD. Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer–determined corneal sensitivity in neonatal foals and adult horses. Vet Ophthalmol 2000;3:133137.

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

    Kaps S, Richter M, Spiess BM. Corneal esthesiometry in the healthy horse. Vet Ophthalmol 2003;6:151155.

  • 9.

    Stiles J, Krohne S, Rankin A, et al. The efficacy of 0.5% proparacaine stored at room temperature. Vet Ophthalmol 2001;4:205207.

  • 10.

    Willis M, Bounous DI, Hirsh S, et al. Conjunctival brush cytology: evaluation of a new cytological collection technique in dogs and cats with a comparison to conjunctival scraping. Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1997;7:7481.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Bolzan AA, Brunelli ATJ, Castro MB, et al. Conjunctival impression cytology in dogs. Vet Ophthalmol 2005;8:401405.

  • 12.

    Bourges-Abella N, Raymond-Letron I, Diquelou A, et al. Comparison of cytologic and histologic evaluations of the conjunctiva in the normal equine eye. Vet Ophthalmol 2007;10:1218.

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

    Katz RS, Henkind P, Weitzman ED. The circadian rhythm of the intraocular pressure in the New Zealand White rabbit. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1975;14:775780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Del Sole MJ, Sande PH, Bernades JM, et al. Circadian rhythm of intraocular pressure in cats. Vet Ophthalmol 2007;10:155161.

  • 15.

    Prasse KW, Winston SM. The eyes and associated structures. In: Cowell RL, Tyler RD, Meinkoth JH, eds. Diagnostic cytology and hematology of the dog and cat. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby, 1999;6882.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Brown MH, Brightman AH, Butine MD, et al. The phenol red thread tear test in healthy cats. Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1997;7:249252.

  • 17.

    Biricik HS, Oguz H, Sindak N, et al. Evaluation of the Schirmer and phenol red thread tests for measuring tear secretion in rabbits. Vet Rec 2005;156:485487.

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

    Hawkins EC, Murphy CJ. Inconsistencies in the absorptive capacities of Schirmer tear test strips. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1986;188:511513.

  • 19.

    Saleh TA, McDermott B, Bates AK, et al. Phenol red thread test vs Schirmer's test: a comparative study. Eye 2006;20:913915.

  • 20.

    Tomlinson A, Blades KJ, Pearce EI. What does the phenol red thread test actually measure? Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:142146.

  • 21.

    Strughold H. The mechanical threshold of the cornea-reflex of the usual laboratory animals. Am J Physiol 1930;94:235240.

  • 22.

    Good KL, Maggs DJ, Hollingsworth SR, et al. Corneal sensitivity in dogs with diabetes mellitus. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:711.

  • 23.

    Blocker T, van der Woerdt A.. A comparison of corneal sensitivity between brachycephalic and domestic short-haired cats. Vet Ophthalmol 2001;4:127130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Binder DR, Herring IP. Duration of corneal anesthesia following topical administration of 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride solution in clinically normal cats. Am J Vet Res 2006;67:17801782.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Taskintuna I, Banker AS, Rao NA, et al. An animal model for cidofovir (HPMPC) toxicity: intraocular pressure and histopathologic effects. Exp Eye Res 1997;64:795806.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Banker AS, Bergeron-Lynn G, Keefe KS, et al. Effects of topical and subconjunctival cidofovir (HPMPC) in an animal model. Curr Eye Res 1998;17:560566.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Lu S, Cheng L, Hostetler KY, et al. Intraocular properties of hexadecyloxypropyl-cyclic-cidofovir in guinea pigs. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2005;21:205209.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Moore CG, Milne ST, Morrison JC. Noninvasive measurement of rat intraocular pressure with the Tono-Pen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:363369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Reitsamer HA, Kiel JW, Harrison JM, et al. Tonopen measurement of intraocular pressure in mice. Exp Eye Res 2004;78:799804.

  • 30.

    Danias J, Kontiola AI, Filippopoulos T, et al. Method for the noninvasive measurement of intraocular pressure in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:11381141.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Wang WH, Millar JC, Pang IH, et al. Noninvasive measurement of rodent intraocular pressure with a rebound tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:46174621.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Morris CA, Crowston JG, Lindsey JD, et al. Comparison of invasive and non-invasive tonometry in the mouse. Exp Eye Res 2006;82:821099.

  • 33.

    Cohan BE, Bohr DF. Measurement of intraocular pressure in awake mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:25602562.

  • 34.

    Goldblum D, Kontiola A, Mittag T, et al. Non-invasive determination of intraocular pressure in the rat eye. Comparison of an electronic tonometer (TonoPen), and a rebound (impact probe) tonometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002;240:942946.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Pease ME, Hammond JC, Quigley HA. Manometric calibration and comparison of TonoLab and TonoPen tonometers in rats with experimental glaucoma and in normal mice. J Glaucoma 2006;15:15519.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Knollinger AM, La Croi. NC, Barrett PM, et al. Evaluation of a rebound tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in dogs and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:244248.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Broadwater JJ, Schorling JJ, Herring IP, et al. Ophthalmic examination findings in adult pygmy goats (Capra hicus). Vet Ophthalmol 2007;10:269273.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Leiva M, Naranjo C, Pena MT. Comparison of the rebound tonometer (ICare) to the applanation tonometer (Tonopen XL) in normotensive dogs. Vet Ophthalmol 2006;9:1721.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Kalesnykas G, Uusitalo H. Comparison of simultaneous readings of intraocular pressure in rabbits using Perkins handheld, Tono-Pen XL, and TonoVet tonometers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;245:761762.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Hirsh DC, Zee YC. Veterinary microbiology. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Science, 1999.

  • 41.

    Galle LE, Moore CP. Clinical microbiology. In: Gelatt KN, ed. Veterinary ophthalmology. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007;236270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Dupont C, Carrier M, Higgins R. Bacterial and fungal flora in healthy eyes of birds of prey. Can Vet J 1994;35:699701.

  • 43.

    Zenoble RD, Griffith RW, Clubb SL. Survey of bacteriologic flora of conjunctiva and cornea in healthy psittacine birds. Am J Vet Res 1983;44:19661967.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Gerding P, Cormany K, Weisiger R, et al. Survey and topographic distribution of bacterial and fungal microorganisms in eyes of clinically normal dogs. Canine Pract 1993;18:3438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Davidson HJ, Rogers DP, Yeary TJ, et al. Conjunctival microbial flora of clinically normal pigs. Am J Vet Res 1994;55:949951.

  • 46.

    Pinard CL, Brightman AH, Yeary TJ, et al. Normal conjunctival flora in the North American opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). J Wildl Dis 2002;38:851855.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    Gemensky-Metzler AJ, Wilkie DA, Kowalski JJ, et al. Changes in bacterial and fungal ocular flora of clinically normal horses following experimental application of topical antimicrobial or antimicrobial-corticosteroid ophthalmic preparations. Am J Vet Res 2005;66:800811.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Montiani-Ferreira F, Mattos BC, Russ HHA. Reference values for selected ophthalmic diagnostic tests of the ferret (Mustela putorius furo). Vet Ophthalmol 2006;9:209213.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Cooper SC, McLellan GJ, Rycroft AN. Conjunctival flora observed in 70 healthy domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Vet Rec 2001;149:232235.

  • 50.

    Harkness JE, Wagner JE. The biology and medicine of rabbits and rodents. 4th ed. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co, 1995.

  • 51.

    Strik NI, Alleman AR, Wellehan JF. Conjunctival swab cytology from a guinea pig: it's elementary! Vet Clin Pathol 2005;34:169171.

  • 52.

    Hoover EA, Kahn DE, Langloss JM. Experimentally induced feline chlamydial infection (feline pneumonitis). Am J Vet Res 1978;39:39547.

  • 53.

    Nasisse MP, Guy JS, Stevens JB, et al. Clinical and laboratory findings in chronic conjunctivitis in cats: 91 cases (1983–1991). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;203:834837.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    Farrar WE, Kent TH, Elliott VB. Lethal gram-negative bacterial superinfection in guinea pigs given bacitracin. J Bacteriol 1966;92:92501.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    O'Rourke DP. Disease problems of guinea pigs. In: Quesenberry KE, Carpenter JW, eds. Ferrets, rabbits and rodents: clinical medicine and surgery. 2nd ed. St Louis: Saunders, 2003;245254.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56.

    Labetoulle M, Frau E, Le Jeunn C. Systemic adverse effects of topical ocular treatments. Presse Med 2005;34:589595.

  • 57.

    Latkovic S, Nilsson SE. The ultrastructure of the normal conjunctival epithelium of the guinea pig. I. The basal and intermediate layers of the perilimbal zone. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1979;57:57122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    Latkovic S, Nilsson SG. The ultrastructure of the normal conjunctival epithelium of the guinea pig. II. The superficial layer of the perilimbal zone. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1979;57:123135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    Latkovic S. The ultrastructure of the normal conjunctival epithelium of the guinea pig. III. The bulbar zone, the zone of the fornix and the supranodular zone. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1979;57:57320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60.

    Latkovic S. The ultrastructure of the normal conjunctival epithelium of the guinea pig. IV. The palpebral and the perimarginal zones. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1979;57:321335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Results of diagnostic ophthalmic testing in healthy guinea pigs

Martin E. Coster DVM1, Jean Stiles DVM, MS, DACVO2, Sheryl G. Krohne DVM, MS, DACVO3, and Rose E. Raskin DVM, PhD, DACVP4
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
  • | 2 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
  • | 4 Department of Comparative Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Abstract

Objective—To report values for tear production, central corneal touch threshold (CTT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy guinea pigs and determine results of aerobic bacterial culture and cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Animals—31 healthy guinea pigs (62 eyes) of various ages and breeds.

Procedures—Tear production was measured by the phenol red thread tear test (PRT) and Schirmer tear test (STT) before and after topical anesthetic application, CTT was measured with an esthesiometer, and IOP was measured by applanation tonometry.

Results—Combining data from all eyes, mean ± SD PRT values before and after topical anesthetic administration were 21.26 ± 4.19 mm/15 s and 22.47 ± 3.31 mm/15 s, respectively, and mean IOP was 18.27 ± 4.55 mm Hg. Median STT values before and after topical anesthetic administration were 3 mm/min (range, 0 to 12 mm/min) and 4 mm/min (range, 0 to 11 mm/min), respectively, and median CTT was 2.0 cm (range, 0.5 to 3.0 cm). Values did not differ between eyes for any test, but significant differences were identified for PRT values between males and females and between values obtained before and after topical anesthetic administration. Common bacterial isolates included Corynebacterium spp, Streptococcus spp, and Staphylococcus spp. Cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens revealed mainly basal epithelial cells; lymphocytes were common.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results provided information on values for PRT, STT, CTT, and IOP in healthy guinea pigs and on expected findings for aerobic bacterial culture and cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens.

Abstract

Objective—To report values for tear production, central corneal touch threshold (CTT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy guinea pigs and determine results of aerobic bacterial culture and cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Animals—31 healthy guinea pigs (62 eyes) of various ages and breeds.

Procedures—Tear production was measured by the phenol red thread tear test (PRT) and Schirmer tear test (STT) before and after topical anesthetic application, CTT was measured with an esthesiometer, and IOP was measured by applanation tonometry.

Results—Combining data from all eyes, mean ± SD PRT values before and after topical anesthetic administration were 21.26 ± 4.19 mm/15 s and 22.47 ± 3.31 mm/15 s, respectively, and mean IOP was 18.27 ± 4.55 mm Hg. Median STT values before and after topical anesthetic administration were 3 mm/min (range, 0 to 12 mm/min) and 4 mm/min (range, 0 to 11 mm/min), respectively, and median CTT was 2.0 cm (range, 0.5 to 3.0 cm). Values did not differ between eyes for any test, but significant differences were identified for PRT values between males and females and between values obtained before and after topical anesthetic administration. Common bacterial isolates included Corynebacterium spp, Streptococcus spp, and Staphylococcus spp. Cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens revealed mainly basal epithelial cells; lymphocytes were common.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results provided information on values for PRT, STT, CTT, and IOP in healthy guinea pigs and on expected findings for aerobic bacterial culture and cytologic examination of conjunctival swab specimens.

Contributor Notes

Presented in part at the 38th Annual Meeting of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists, Kona, Hawaii, October 2007.

The authors thank Dr. Julia Becker and Toni Horsley for assistance with subject recruitment and Mindy Anderson and Pam Kirby for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Coster.