Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How vets diagnose laryngeal paralysis in dogs using three tests
By Radlinsky, Maryann G et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2009·Department of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of three clinical techniques for the diagnosis of laryngeal paralysis in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with breathing problems due to laryngeal paralysis underwent three different tests to see which one diagnosed the condition best. The tests included echolaryngography (EL), which uses sound waves, and two types of laryngoscopy, one done through the mouth (LPO) and one through the nose (TNL). The results showed that LPO, which allows direct observation of the larynx, was the most accurate method for diagnosing laryngeal paralysis. The study concluded that LPO should be preferred over the other methods for diagnosing this condition in dogs.
People also search for: dog breathing problems laryngeal paralysis · laryngeal paralysis diagnosis methods · dog laryngoscopy procedure
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate laryngeal function using 3 diagnostic techniques: echolaryngography (EL), transnasal laryngoscopy (TNL), and laryngoscopy per os (LPO). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Dogs with laryngeal paralysis (n=5) and control dogs (n=10); 5 age- and breed-matched dogs and 5 young, breed-matched dogs. METHODS: Laryngeal function was evaluated in conscious dogs using EL. All examinations were recorded and evaluated by separate, blinded observers upon completion of the study. The methods were compared with a standard evaluation incorporating all clinical knowledge of the case (STD) using sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values. RESULTS: Three dogs with bilateral laryngeal paralysis requiring surgery were diagnosed as unilaterally affected or normal on EL. Three dogs had paradoxic motion on TNL and LPO, 2 of those were considered normal on EL, and 1 had no motion on EL. Paralysis was diagnosed in 1 age-matched and 3 young control dogs on EL. LPO and TNL falsely diagnosed lack of arytenoid movement in 2 age-matched controls and 1 young control. Two age-matched and 1 young control dog were misdiagnosed as paralyzed with TNL and LPO. DISCUSSION: Direct observation of the larynx allowed better evaluation of laryngeal function compared with EL. TNL did not require induction of anesthesia, but did not improve the ability to assess laryngeal function compared with LPO. CONCLUSIONS: EL was not as effective as direct observation of the larynx. TNL did not improve the evaluation of laryngeal function compared with LPO. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We use LPO combined with knowledge of the clinical history and physical examination to diagnose laryngeal paralysis in preference to EL and TNL.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19538662/