HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 95/2/635    most recent 01105.2002v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Straszek, S. P. Articles by Pedersen, O. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Straszek, S. P. Articles by Pedersen, O. F.

Acoustic rhinometry in dog and cat compared with a fluid-displacement method and magnetic resonance imaging

¹Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Aarhus, ²Magnetic Resonance Center, Skejby Hospital, and ³Tilst Animal Hospital, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark

Submitted 2 December 2002 ; accepted in final form 7 April 2003

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. We compared area-distance relationships of nasal cavities from five decapitated dogs (3.5–41 kg) and cats (3.8–6 kg). AR was compared with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and a fluid-displacement method (FDM) using perfluorocarbon. 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. AR markedly underestimated nasal cavity dimensions when minimum areas were below 0.1 cm² in dogs and 0.05 cm² in cats. 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 FDM in dogs and 52% (66–39%) in cats. AR agreed well with MR, especially in the deeper part of the cavity. 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. FDM produced repeatable measurements and possibly offers the most adequate reference in future evaluation of AR. AR underestimated what we believed were the most correct cross-sectional areas determined by FDM, 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.

nasal airway volume; nasal pharmacology; laboratory animals; rhinology

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]