To calculate the necessary pseudophakic intraocular lens (IOL) power to approximate emmetropia in adult tigers.
17 clinically normal adult tigers.
33 eyes of 17 clinically normal adult tigers underwent routine ophthalmic examination and B-scan ultrasonography while anesthetized for unrelated procedures. Specific ultrasound data (globe measurements and corneal curvature) and estimated postoperative IOL positions were utilized to calculate predicted IOL power by use of Retzlaff and Binkhorst theoretical formulas. Applanation tonometry and refraction were also performed.
Mean ± SD axial globe length was 29.36 ± 0.82 mm, preoperative anterior chamber depth was 7.00 ± 0.74 mm, and crystalline lens thickness was 8.72 ± 0.56 mm. Mean net refractive error (n = 33 eyes) was +0.27 ± 0.30 diopters (D). By use of the Retzlaff formula, mean predicted IOL power for the postoperative anterior chamber depth (PACD), PACD – 2 mm, and PACD + 2 mm was 43.72 ± 4.84 D, 37.62 ± 4.19 D, and 51.57 ± 5.72 D, respectively. By use of the Binkhorst equation, these values were 45.11 ± 4.91 D, 38.84 ± 4.25 D, and 53.18 ± 5.81 D, respectively. Mean intraocular pressure for all eyes was 14.7 ± 2.69 mm Hg.
The calculated tiger IOL was lower than reported values for adult domestic felids. Further studies evaluating actual PACD and pseudophakic refraction would help determine the appropriate IOL power to achieve emmetropia in this species.
Objective—To determine total dietary fiber (TDF) concentration and composition of commercial diets used for management of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dietary fat-responsive disease in dogs.
Sample—Dry (n = 11) and canned (8) canine therapeutic diets.
Procedures—Insoluble and soluble dietary fiber (IDF and SDF), high-molecular-weight SDF (HMWSDF), and low-molecular-weight SDF (LMWSDF) concentrations were determined. Variables were compared among diets categorized by product guide indication, formulation (dry vs canned), and regulatory criteria for light and low-fat diets.
Results—SDF (HMWSDF and LMWSDF) comprised a median of 30.4% (range, 9.4% to 53.7%) of TDF; LMWSDF contributed a median of 11.5% (range, 2.7% to 33.8%) of TDF. Diets for diabetes management had higher concentrations of IDF and TDF with lower proportions of SDF and LMWSDF contributing to TDF, compared with diets for treatment of fat-responsive disease. Fiber concentrations varied within diet categories and between canned and dry versions of the same diet (same name and manufacturer) for all pairs evaluated. Diets classified as light contained higher TDF and IDF concentrations than did non-light diets. All canned diets were classified as low fat, despite providing up to 38% of calories as fat.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Diets provided a range of TDF concentrations and compositions; veterinarians should request TDF data from manufacturers, if not otherwise available. Consistent responses to dry and canned versions of the same diet cannot necessarily be expected, and diets with the same indications may not perform similarly. Many diets may not provide adequate fat restriction for treatment of dietary fat-responsive disease.
Procedures—Percentage of TDF as insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), high-molecular-weight soluble dietary fiber (HMWSDF), and low-molecular-weight soluble dietary fiber (LMWSDF) was determined.
Results—Median measured TDF concentration was greater than reported maximum crude fiber content in dry and canned diets. Median TDF (dry-matter) concentration in dry and canned diets was 12.2% (range, 8.11% to 27.16%) and 13.8% (range, 4.7% to 27.9%), respectively. Dry and canned diets, and diets with and without a source of oligosaccharides in the ingredient list, were not different in energy density or concentrations of TDF, IDF, HMWSDF, or LMWSDF. Similarly, loaf-type (n = 11) and gravy-type (4) canned diets differed only in LMWSDF concentration. Disparities in TDF concentrations among products existed despite a lack of differences among groups. Limited differences in TDF concentration and dietary fiber composition were detected when diets were compared on the basis of carbohydrate concentration. Diets labeled for management of obesity were higher in TDF concentration and lower in energy density than diets for management of diabetes mellitus.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Diets provided a range of TDF concentrations with variable concentrations of IDF, HMWSDF, and LMWSDF. Crude fiber concentration was not a reliable indicator of TDF concentration or dietary fiber composition. Because carbohydrate content is calculated as a difference, results suggested that use of crude fiber content would cause overestimation of both carbohydrate and energy content of diets.
Objective—To determine efficacy of a protocol for managing urethral obstruction (UO) in male cats without urethral catheterization.
Animals—15 male cats with UO in which conventional treatment had been declined.
Procedures—Laboratory testing and abdominal radiography were performed, and cats with severe metabolic derangements or urinary calculi were excluded. Treatment included administration of acepromazine (0.25 mg, IM, or 2.5 mg, PO, q 8 h), buprenorphine (0.075 mg, PO, q 8 h), and medetomidine (0.1 mg, IM, q 24 h) and decompressive cystocentesis and SC administration of fluids as needed. Cats were placed in a quiet, dark environment to minimize stress. Treatment success was defined as spontaneous urination within 72 hours and subsequent discharge from the hospital.
Results—Treatment was successful in 11 of the 15 cats. In the remaining 4 cats, treatment was considered to have failed because of development of uroabdomen (n = 3) or hemoabdomen (1). Cats in which treatment failed had significantly higher serum creatinine concentrations than did cats in which treatment was successful. Necropsy was performed on 3 cats in which treatment had failed. All 3 had severe inflammatory disease of the urinary bladder, but none had evidence of bladder rupture.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that in male cats, a combination of pharmacological treatment, decompressive cystocentesis, and a low-stress environment may allow for resolution of UO without the need for urethral catheterization. This low-cost protocol could serve as an alternative to euthanasia when financial constraints prevent more extensive treatment.