Journal of Applied Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol (April 18, 2003). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01105.2002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/2/635    most recent
01105.2002v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Straszek, S. P
Right arrow Articles by Pedersen, O. F
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Straszek, S. P
Right arrow Articles by Pedersen, O. F
Submitted on December 2, 2002
Accepted on April 7, 2003

Acoustic Rhinometry in dog and cat compared to a Fluid-Displacement-Method and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Sune P Straszek1*, Finn Taagehoj2, Soren Graff3, and Ole F Pedersen1

1 Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, 8000, Denmark
2 MR-Center, Skejby Hospital, Aarhus, 8200, Denmark
3 Tilst Animal Hospital, Tilst, 8381, Denmark

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: spvs{at}mil.au.dk.

An increasing number of studies have used acoustic rhinometry (AR) for study of pharmacological interventions on nasal cavity dimensions in dogs and cats, but there have been no attempts to validate AR in these species. This is done in the present study. Method: We compared area-distance relationships of nasal cavities from 5 decapitated dogs (3.5-41 kg) and cats (3.8-6 kg). AR was compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MR), and a fluid-displacement method (FDM) using perfluorocarbon. Results: AR measured 88% (98-79%) (mean and 95% confidence interval) of nasal cavity volume in dogs determined by FDM, and 71% (83-59%) in cats. When minimum areas were below 0.1 cm2 in dogs, and 0.05 cm2 in cats, AR severely underestimated nasal cavity dimensions. AR underestimation increased with the severity of the constriction and with distance. Cross-sectional areas in the deeper parts of the cavity measured 76% (99-54%) of fluid-displacement in dogs and 52% (66-39%) in cats. AR agreed well with MR, especially in the deeper part of the cavity. Discussion: MR images showed that the nasal cavities had a very complex structure not expected to be reproduced by AR. MR could not be considered a "gold standard" because definition of the cross-sectional area of the lumen depended critically on subjective choices. Fluid-displacement produced repeatable measurements and possibly offers the most adequate reference in future evaluation of AR. Conclusion: AR underestimated what we believed were the most correct cross-sectional areas determined by fluid-displacement, especially in the deeper part of the dog and cat nasal cavities. Despite these difficulties AR has been shown to be useful to describe qualitative changes in cross-sectional area.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
S. P. Straszek and O. F. Pedersen
Nasal cavity dimensions in guinea pig and rat measured by acoustic rhinometry and fluid-displacement method
J Appl Physiol, June 1, 2004; 96(6): 2109 - 2114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1966 by the American Physiological Society.