Journal of Small Animal Practice最新文献

As evidence synthesis and guideline development efforts advance in veterinary medicine, the quality and quantity of data can be limiting factors. Aspiration and pragmatism must be balanced to ensure optimal data development and availability. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are ideally based on multiple large randomised controlled trials from a broad range of relevant populations, but cost, time and caseload can be substantial barriers. Small randomised controlled trials can also provide useful and actionable information. Data from numerous small but robustly designed and executed, comparable randomised controlled trials can support stronger conclusions, complementing larger randomised controlled trials or providing critical important knowledge when larger randomised controlled trials are not available. The value from these small trials is in the data, not the analysis, as individual analyses within these randomised controlled trials are usually underpowered to detect reasonable and clinically relevant endpoints. A desire for perfection can inhibit progress if randomised controlled trials are not performed, or if small but potentially useful data sets remain unpublished. We encourage the veterinary scientific community, including researchers, reviewers and editors, to strive for optimal study designs and sample sizes but to be open to publishing data from small trials that may provide little insight in isolation but contribute useful data for meta-analyses.

Objectives: Gastroesophageal reflux during anaesthesia is a common event occurring in dogs with the potential to cause oesophageal injury and aspiration pneumonia. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of the novel metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist TT001 on gastroesophageal reflux during anaesthesia in dogs using two different protocols.

Materials and methods: One hundred and nineteen client-owned dogs were included and randomly assigned to receive test-drug containing either active TT001 (n = 58) or placebo vehicle (n = 61). In protocol 1 (n = 77), test-drug was administered shortly before induction and in protocol 2 (n = 42) test-drug was administered 15 minutes before standardised pre-anaesthetic drugs. Gastroesophageal reflux (pH <4) was measured and recorded using oesophageal pH-metry throughout the duration of the anaesthesia.

Results: Gastroesophageal reflux was registered in 45.4% of dogs, in protocol 1: 44.2%, and in protocol 2: 47.6%. No overall statistically significant difference between the dogs receiving active TT001 (group A, 48.3%) and placebo (group B, 42.6%) was observed, regardless of the protocol tested (protocol 1: group A: 47.4%, group B: 41.0%; protocol 2: group A: 50.0%, group B: 45.5%).

Clinical significance: Administration of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist TT001 as a single intravenous bolus injection before or after pre-anaesthetic drugs has limited effect on the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux in anaesthetised dogs.

Following the receipt of this Letter to the Editor, we reached out to a statistician with the request to provide a second opinion review of the statistical analyses reported. This review indicated that the conclusions as stated in the paper did not match the statistical results reported. To address this, we have recommended retraction of the currently published version of the paper to allow the authors to revise the manuscript and submit an amended version for review.

Thank you for carefully analysing the data presented in our paper and for raising an important point regarding the interpretation of the odds ratio.

As you stated in your letter, the odds ratio of 0.53 reported in the manuscript actually reflects the inverse comparison (epirubicin vs. doxorubicin), making our interpretation incorrect.

Unfortunately, this error resulted from several rounds of revision (the manuscript has been under review for 8 months) during which some cases were excluded – ultimately reducing the dataset to 178 cases – along with changes in statistical methodology and editorial suggestions to revise our initial interpretation (which originally aligned with yours: doxorubicin was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects). The change in the interpretation of the results was also supported by our statistician at the time.

The statistician who conducted the analysis and provided the interpretation has now reviewed the logistic regression model used in the study. Upon re-examination, he realised that the outcome variable had been coded as a factor with levels “yes” and “no”, and that R had automatically set “no” as the reference level. This resulted in an inversion of the odds ratio interpretation, which, unfortunately, went unnoticed during the review process. He has acknowledged that he should have more carefully checked the coding of the outcome variable and the reference level set by the general linear model function. This oversight on our part unfortunately led to a misinterpretation.

We regret that we are now faced with these circumstances, especially given the length and thoroughness of the peer review process. As you know, this requires an incredible amount of work from all involved – Authors, Editors and Reviewers. However, we are grateful that the mistake was identified promptly – albeit following publication.

As researchers and veterinary oncologists, we strive to publish accurate data that can then be translated into clinical practice. We therefore appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points and will liaise with the Journal to determine the most appropriate course of action.

We read with great interest the recent article by Treggiari et al., ‘Factors associated with the development of gastrointestinal adverse events in dogs with multicentric lymphoma treated with CHOP or CEOP-based protocols: a multi-institutional, retrospective study’. As veterinary oncologists, we greatly appreciate the valuable insights provided by the authors regarding the gastrointestinal adverse events of doxorubicin and epirubicin – topics of significant relevance to our daily practice.

However, we would like to seek clarification regarding one critical point in the manuscript. According to the authors, gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in 36 of 64 dogs treated with doxorubicin and in 46 of 114 dogs treated with epirubicin. Despite these figures, the reported odds ratio for gastrointestinal toxicity in the univariate analysis is 0.53 for doxorubicin relative to epirubicin, suggesting that epirubicin is associated with a higher risk of toxicity.

Based on our calculations, the odds ratio for gastrointestinal toxicity associated with doxorubicin compared to epirubicin is approximately 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.53; P = 0.0436), while the inverse – epirubicin to doxorubicin – yields an odds ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.98; P = 0.0436). This raises the possibility that the reported odds ratio in the manuscript might have been inadvertently presented in the inverse direction, which could significantly affect the interpretation of the findings and the overall conclusion.

Alternatively, we noted the abstract states, “receiving epirubicin at a dosage of 1 mg/kg” was at higher risk of developing gastrointestinal adverse events. If this refers specifically to a subset of dogs receiving epirubicin at the particular dosage, it may explain the direction of the odds ratio. However, no explanation is provided regarding this point.

We would greatly appreciate it if the authors could clarify this point or provide further explanation regarding the methodology used in calculating and interpreting the odds ratio.

Objectives: To examine the prevalence and types of work-related injuries in companion animal practices, explore the context of their occurrence and the behaviours of injured persons.

Methods: A mixed-methods analysis of a cross-sectional online survey of UK employees of a consolidated group of veterinary practices.

Results: Of 647 respondents, 77.6% experienced a work-related injury during their career. In the previous year, 60.2% of veterinary nurses and 58.3% of veterinarians were injured, most frequently in consultation rooms, prep areas, kennels and reception. Animal-related injuries were the most prevalent injury type. Injuries frequently occurred during cat restraint, anaesthetic recovery and clinical examinations. Needlestick injuries made up 15.8% of veterinary injuries. 16.3% of injured nurses and 19.4% of injured vets attended hospital. 34.3% of nurses and 25.1% of vets needed more than a week to recover from their injuries. Fewer than 10% took time off work, often due to a sense of duty, the ability to manage a reduced workload or simply wanting to "get on with it". Most injuries to vets went unreported, due to perceived time pressures or the belief that the injury was minor. Around half adjusted their behaviour post-injury, becoming more cautious or changing handling techniques.

Clinical significance: This study reveals a high rate of work-related injuries in companion animal practices. A poor injury culture, marked by presenteeism, often downplaying risks, and hindering safety. To reduce injuries, a shift towards shared responsibility and reflective learning is needed, driven by strong leadership and open communication.

A 12-year-old dog underwent liver lobectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma, and Surgicel® was used intraoperatively for haemostasis. Three months after surgery, computed tomography revealed a solitary abdominal mass, which was surgically removed. Histopathology identified the mass as retained Surgicel® surrounded by granulomatous inflammation. Although Surgicel® is generally considered safe, retained material may mimic abscess, haematoma or tumour recurrence on imaging. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first veterinary case describing an encapsulated granuloma caused by retained Surgicel® in a dog. This case highlights that Surgicel® may persist and induce granulomatous inflammation, mimicking significant postoperative complications on imaging. Accurate intraoperative documentation and awareness of this potential pitfall are essential to prevent misdiagnosis and avoid unnecessary procedures.

Acute non-compressive nucleus pulposus extrusion (ANNPE) is a recognised cause of peracute spinal cord injury in dogs, involving sudden extrusion of non-degenerated nucleus pulposus with minimal compression. While often linked to vigorous activity, its triggers remain unclear. This case describes an 8-year-old neutered male poodle cross dog who developed peracute non-ambulatory paraparesis while running to retrieve a ball. Neurological examination was consistent with a T3-L3 myelopathy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed disc space narrowing with intramedullary T2W hyperintensity at T13-L1 consistent with ANNPE and a T13 vertebral body lesion that was hyperintense in T1W/STIR and contrast-enhancing, later confirmed as T-cell lymphoma by surgical biopsy. The dog demonstrated rapid clinical improvement, with motor function recovery by day 6 and becoming ambulatory with mild ataxia by week 3. This case highlights the importance of considering underlying vertebral pathology in dogs with presumed ANNPE and emphasises that vertebral lesions detected on MRI may have clinical relevance and should not be overlooked.

Objectives: To describe the clinical application and outcome associated with the intraoperative use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate for managing small air leaks following lung lobectomies, lung lacerations and pulmonary bullae in a cohort of eight dogs.

Materials and methods: Medical and surgical records of eight client-owned dogs were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the intraoperative use of topical N-butyl cyanoacrylate adhesive in pulmonary surgery. Data on intra- and postoperative complications, hospitalisation time, thoracostomy tube output, duration of thoracostomy tube placement and outcome were assessed.

Results: Eight dogs were included in the study, with a total of ten applications of N-butyl cyanoacrylate: seven applied directly to bullae (Dogs 1, 3 and 4) or parenchymal lacerations (Dogs 5-8) and two used to reinforce staple lines (Dogs 2 and 5). All dogs survived to discharge. The median duration of hospitalisation was 3 days, while thoracostomy tubes remained in situ for a median of 1 day. No complications associated with the use of adhesive were reported at the latest follow-up.

Clinical significance: The intraoperative use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate adhesive provided effective management of small air leaks (<7 mm) across various clinical scenarios, either as an adjunctive or as a primary intervention. Further studies are needed to assess its long-term biocompatibility and refine application techniques.