• 1.

    Kimura SJ, Phillips T. The cytology of external ocular disease. Am J Ophthalmol 1955;39:137145.

  • 2.

    Young KM, Teixeira LBC. Eyes and associated structures. In: Valenciano AC, Cowell RL, eds. Cowell and Tyler's diagnostic cytology and hematology of the dog and cat. 5th ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2019;141161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Murphy JM. Exfoliative cytologic examination as an aid in diagnosing ocular diseases in the dog and cat. Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim 1988;3:1014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Raskin RE. Eyes and adnexa. In: Raskin RE, Meyer DJ, eds. Canine and feline cytology: a color atlas and interpretation guide. 3rd ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2016;408429.

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

    Athanasiou L, Psemmas D, Papaioannou N. Conjunctival cytology assessment in dogs and cats. J Hellenic Vet Med Soc 2018;69:701710.

  • 6.

    Hillström A, Tvedten H, Källberg M, et al.. Evaluation of cytologic findings in feline conjunctivitis. Vet Clin Pathol 2012;41:283290.

  • 7.

    Lopez Cardozo P, Oosterhuis J, de Wolff-Rouendaal D. Exfoliative cytology in the diagnosis of conjunctival tumours. Ophthalmologica 1981;182:157164.

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

    Perazzi A, Bonsembiante F, Gelain ME, et al.. Cytology of the healthy canine and feline ocular surface: comparison between cytology brush and impression technique. Vet Clin Pathol 2017;46:164171.

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

    Anagnostopoulou-Fotinopoulou I, Rammou-Kinia R. Cytology brush sampling in conjunctival cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:113115.

  • 10.

    Willis M, Bounous D, 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.

    Hendrix D. Diseases and surgery of the canine conjunctiva and nictitating membrane. In: Kirk NG, Brian CG, Thomas JK, et al.. eds. Veterinary ophthalmology. 5th ed. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2013;945975.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Tsubota K, Kajiwara K, Ugajin S, et al.. Conjunctival brush cytology. Acta Cytol 1990;34:233235.

  • 13.

    Featherstone HJ, Heinrich CL. Ophthalmic examination and diagnostics. Part 1: the eye examination and diagnostic procedures. In: Kirk NG, Brian CG, Thomas JK, et al.. eds. Veterinary ophthalmology. 5th ed. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2013;533613.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Trimbos JB, Arentz NP. The efficiency of the cytology brush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986;30:261263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Bauer GA, Spiess BM, Lutz H. Exfoliative cytology of conjunctiva and cornea in domestic animals: a comparison of four collecting techniques. Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1996;6:181186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Fujihara T, Takeuchi T, Saito K, et al.. Evaluation of human conjunctival epithelium by a combination of brush cytology and flow cytometry: an approach to the quantitative technique. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:456460.

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

    Borges RF, de Freitas Cardoso KC, Bolzan AB, et al.. Comparative study of methods of harvesting and staining for conjunctival cytology in normal dogs. Vet Zootec 2012;19:381391.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Yağmur M, Ersöz C, Ersöz TR, et al.. Brush technique in ocular surface cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:8891.

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

    Stiles J. Ocular infections. In: Sykes J, Greene C, eds. Infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2012;10581077.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Bosco JMD, Lopes BMV, Bosco AF, et al.. Local application of tetracycline solution with a mini cytology brush: an alternative treatment for persistent periodontitis. Quintessence Int 2009;40:2940.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Venturi F, Blocker T, Dees DD, et al.. Corneal anesthetic effect and ocular tolerance of 3.5% lidocaine gel in comparison with 0.5% aqueous proparacaine and 0.5% viscous tetracaine in normal canines. Vet Ophthalmol 2017;20:405410.

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

    Edwards SG, Maggs DJ, Byrne BA, et al.. Effect of topical application of 0.5% proparacaine on corneal culture results from 33 dogs, 12 cats, and 19 horses with spontaneously arising ulcerative keratitis. Vet Ophthalmol 2019;4:415422.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Dwivedi N, Agarwal A, Raj V, et al.. Comparison of centrifuged liquid based cytology method with conventional brush cytology in oral lesions. European J Gen Dent 2012;1:192.

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

    Naib ZM, Clepper AS, Elliott SR. Exfoliative cytology as an aid in the diagnosis of ophthalmic lesions. Acta Cytol 1967;11:295303.

  • 25.

    Lavach JD, Thrall MA, Benjamin MM, et al.. Cytology of normal and inflamed conjunctivas in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1977;170:722727.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Proietto L, Beatty SS, Plummer CE. Comparison of 3 corneal cytology collection methods for evaluating equine ulcerative keratitis: cytobrush, Kimura platinum spatula, and handle edge of scalpel blade. Vet Ophthalmol 2019;22:153160.

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

    Lanaux TM, Rozanski EA, Simoni RS, et al.. Interpretation of canine and feline blood smears by emergency room personnel. Vet Clin Pathol 2011;40:1823.

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

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

Advertisement

Comparison of the use of a standard cytology brush versus a mini cytology brush to obtain conjunctival samples for cytologic examination in healthy dogs

Ana Ripolles-Garcia DVM1, Alba Sanz DVM1, Josep Pastor DVM, PhD1, and Eva M. Abarca DVM, MS1
View More View Less
  • 1 From the Ars Veterinaria Hospital, Barcelona, Spain (Ripolles-Garcia, Abarca); and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (Sanz, Pastor).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of conjunctival samples for cytologic examination obtained with 2 conjunctival exfoliative brushes, a mini cytology brush (MCB) and a standard cytology brush (SCB), in healthy dogs.

ANIMALS

20 client-owned dogs that were free of ocular disease.

PROCEDURES

A prospective single-center randomized trial was performed. For each dog, conjunctival samples of the right eye were obtained with the 2 brushes (ie, SCB or MCB) at 2 time points that were 5 to 11 days apart. The left eye was used as a control. Cytologic quality of conjunctival samples was scored on the basis of cellularity, clearness of background, uniformity of distribution of cells on the cytology slide, artifacts, cellular overlapping, cell preservation, presence of mucus on the cytology slide, and number of RBCs.

RESULTS

On cytologic evaluation, conjunctival samples collected with an SCB scored significantly better in terms of higher cellularity, less background debris, and more uniformity in the distribution of cells, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an MCB. Conjunctival samples collected with an MCB scored significantly better in terms of less cellular overlapping and less mucus in the background, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an SCB.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Overall conjunctival samples obtained with an SCB for cytologic evaluation had better diagnostic quality, compared with conjunctival samples obtained with an MCB. Use of an MCB, however, was advantageous to access localized conjunctival areas as well as collect conjunctival samples from patients with small palpebral fissures. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2021;259:288–293)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of conjunctival samples for cytologic examination obtained with 2 conjunctival exfoliative brushes, a mini cytology brush (MCB) and a standard cytology brush (SCB), in healthy dogs.

ANIMALS

20 client-owned dogs that were free of ocular disease.

PROCEDURES

A prospective single-center randomized trial was performed. For each dog, conjunctival samples of the right eye were obtained with the 2 brushes (ie, SCB or MCB) at 2 time points that were 5 to 11 days apart. The left eye was used as a control. Cytologic quality of conjunctival samples was scored on the basis of cellularity, clearness of background, uniformity of distribution of cells on the cytology slide, artifacts, cellular overlapping, cell preservation, presence of mucus on the cytology slide, and number of RBCs.

RESULTS

On cytologic evaluation, conjunctival samples collected with an SCB scored significantly better in terms of higher cellularity, less background debris, and more uniformity in the distribution of cells, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an MCB. Conjunctival samples collected with an MCB scored significantly better in terms of less cellular overlapping and less mucus in the background, compared with conjunctival samples collected with an SCB.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Overall conjunctival samples obtained with an SCB for cytologic evaluation had better diagnostic quality, compared with conjunctival samples obtained with an MCB. Use of an MCB, however, was advantageous to access localized conjunctival areas as well as collect conjunctival samples from patients with small palpebral fissures. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2021;259:288–293)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Abarca (eva.abarca@anicura.es).