OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified posterior rhinomanometric method for clinical application in dogs. ANIMALS: 15 healthy Beagles and 8 Bulldogs (4 healthy and 4 with respiratory problems). PROCEDURES: Rhinomanometry was performed 3 times within a 15-minute period in anesthetized dogs. Transnasal pressure (P(NA)) and nasal resistance (R(NA)) were determined by use of artificial airflow (adjusted for body weight) for inspiration (P(NAin) and R(NAin), respectively) and expiration (P(NAout) and R(NAout)). Procedures were repeated for the Beagles 7 days later. RESULTS: For the Beagles, mean +/- SD of P(NAin) for both days (0.162 +/- 0.042 kPa) was significantly lower than P(NAout) (0.183 +/- 0.053 kPa). Similarly, R(NAin) (1.47 +/- 0.41 kPa/[L/s]) was significantly lower than R(NAout) (1.64 +/- 0.46 kPa/[L/s]). Pairwise comparison of values for P(NA) and R(NA) for the 2 days revealed no significant difference. Repeatability of the method (estimated as within-day variation) for R(NA) was +/- 0.19 kPa/(L/s), whereas variation between the days was +/- 0.36 kPa/(L/s) for R(NAin) and +/- 0.44 kPa/(L/s) for R(NAout). The 4 clinically normal Bulldogs had R(NA) values ranging from 1.69 to 3.48 kPa/(L/s), whereas in the 4 Bulldogs with respiratory problems, R(NA) ranged from 9.83 to 20.27 kPa/(L/s). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: R(NA) is inversely dependent on body size and nonlinearly associated with airflow. We propose that R(NA) in dogs should be determined for airflows standardized on the basis of body size. The P(NA) and R(NA) in Beagles can be measured with sufficient repeatability for clinical use and nasal obstructions are detectable.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified posterior rhinomanometric method for clinical application in dogs. ANIMALS: 15 healthy Beagles and 8 Bulldogs (4 healthy and 4 with respiratory problems). PROCEDURES: Rhinomanometry was performed 3 times within a 15-minute period in anesthetized dogs. Transnasal pressure (P(NA)) and nasal resistance (R(NA)) were determined by use of artificial airflow (adjusted for body weight) for inspiration (P(NAin) and R(NAin), respectively) and expiration (P(NAout) and R(NAout)). Procedures were repeated for the Beagles 7 days later. RESULTS: For the Beagles, mean +/- SD of P(NAin) for both days (0.162 +/- 0.042 kPa) was significantly lower than P(NAout) (0.183 +/- 0.053 kPa). Similarly, R(NAin) (1.47 +/- 0.41 kPa/[L/s]) was significantly lower than R(NAout) (1.64 +/- 0.46 kPa/[L/s]). Pairwise comparison of values for P(NA) and R(NA) for the 2 days revealed no significant difference. Repeatability of the method (estimated as within-day variation) for R(NA) was +/- 0.19 kPa/(L/s), whereas variation between the days was +/- 0.36 kPa/(L/s) for R(NAin) and +/- 0.44 kPa/(L/s) for R(NAout). The 4 clinically normal Bulldogs had R(NA) values ranging from 1.69 to 3.48 kPa/(L/s), whereas in the 4 Bulldogs with respiratory problems, R(NA) ranged from 9.83 to 20.27 kPa/(L/s). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: R(NA) is inversely dependent on body size and nonlinearly associated with airflow. We propose that R(NA) in dogs should be determined for airflows standardized on the basis of body size. The P(NA) and R(NA) in Beagles can be measured with sufficient repeatability for clinical use and nasal obstructions are detectable.