Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How to diagnose ear mites in dogs and cats?
By Combarros, Daniel et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2019·University-ONIRIS-DPMA Unit, France·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 methods for the diagnosis of otoacariasis due to Otodectes cynotis in dogs and cats.
Plain-English summary
A 5-year-old cat was brought in for scratching at its ears and shaking its head, which can be signs of ear mites. The veterinarian used different methods to check for the presence of the mites, including looking directly into the ear and taking samples from the earwax. The best results came from using a curette to collect samples, which detected the mites in 93% of cases, compared to 67% with just looking in the ear. For the most accurate diagnosis, it's recommended to use both the otoscopic exam and the curette method together.
People also search for: cat ear mites treatment · how to check for ear mites in cats · symptoms of ear mites in cats
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of otoacariasis due to Otodectes cynotis is based on the visualization of the parasite, either directly by otoscopy or indirectly after microscopic examination of cerumen collected by several methods. OBJECTIVES: To compare the sensitivity of three techniques: conventional handheld otoscopy, Volkmann's curette sampling and cotton-tipped swabbing. ANIMALS: Five dogs and 12 cats (30 naturally infested ears). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each case, following otoscopy, the order of examinations (swab or curette) was chosen randomly and the samples were observed on a slide mixed with lactophenol and covered with a coverslip. Parasite detection was noted as positive or negative and parasitic stages were counted separately. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of otoscopy alone was 67% (positive in 20 of 30 cases), using the curette sampling it was 93% (28/30) and 57% (17/30) for the swabbing. The curette technique had a significantly higher sensitivity than classic ear-swabbing (P = 0.001) or otoscopy alone (P = 0.02). Combining otoscopy and the curette, we obtained a sensitivity of 100% compared to 86% when otoscopy and swabbing were combined. Moreover, the parasite count in the curette samples (average 25 ± 30 SD) was significantly higher than the swab samples (4.5 ± 11) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: When suspecting O. cynotis infestation, otoscopic examination should be performed. To confirm the nature of the parasites observed or whenever this examination result is negative, doubtful or cannot be performed, the curettage sampling method for microscopic cerumen examination is recommended.
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/31025463/