Brian C Leonard1, Celine S Kermanian1, Sarah R Michalak1, Philip H Kass1, Steven R Hollingsworth1, Kathryn L Good1, David J Maggs1, Sara M Thomasy1,2. 1. Departments of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA; and Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA; and. 2. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the clinical data, diagnostic tests, treatments, and outcomes for dogs with corneal endothelial dystrophy (CED) and determine risk factors for CED when compared with a canine reference population. METHODS: Medical records of 99 dogs (1991-2014) diagnosed with CED at the University of California Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital were reviewed and compared with 458,680 dogs comprising the general hospital population during the study period. Retrieved data included signalment, examination findings, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes associated with CED. The exact Pearson χ2 test or exact Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare parameters between the groups. Progression of corneal edema was assessed using 3 independent Kaplan-Meier curves, identifying clinically significant changes in corneal opacity. RESULTS: Boston terriers, German wirehaired pointers, and Dachshunds were overrepresented in the CED-affected group, whereas Labradors were underrepresented. Dogs older than 11 years were overrepresented in the CED-affected group, whereas intact dogs were underrepresented. Surgical intervention was performed (n = 11) based on the severity of disease and secondary complications from CED. Median time to progression of corneal edema was 1) 368 days when an at-risk eye initially without edema developed edema at a subsequent visit, 2) 701 days when there was progression from mild to marked corneal edema, and 3) 340 days when there was progression from focal to diffuse corneal edema. CONCLUSIONS: Many CED-affected dogs progress over months to years without surgical intervention, making dogs with CED a useful model for studying genetic predispositions and development of novel therapeutics for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the clinical data, diagnostic tests, treatments, and outcomes for dogs with corneal endothelial dystrophy (CED) and determine risk factors for CED when compared with a canine reference population. METHODS: Medical records of 99 dogs (1991-2014) diagnosed with CED at the University of California Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital were reviewed and compared with 458,680 dogs comprising the general hospital population during the study period. Retrieved data included signalment, examination findings, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes associated with CED. The exact Pearson χ2 test or exact Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare parameters between the groups. Progression of corneal edema was assessed using 3 independent Kaplan-Meier curves, identifying clinically significant changes in corneal opacity. RESULTS: Boston terriers, German wirehaired pointers, and Dachshunds were overrepresented in the CED-affected group, whereas Labradors were underrepresented. Dogs older than 11 years were overrepresented in the CED-affected group, whereas intact dogs were underrepresented. Surgical intervention was performed (n = 11) based on the severity of disease and secondary complications from CED. Median time to progression of corneal edema was 1) 368 days when an at-risk eye initially without edema developed edema at a subsequent visit, 2) 701 days when there was progression from mild to marked corneal edema, and 3) 340 days when there was progression from focal to diffuse corneal edema. CONCLUSIONS: Many CED-affected dogs progress over months to years without surgical intervention, making dogs with CED a useful model for studying genetic predispositions and development of novel therapeutics for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.
Authors: Xiaolin Zhang; Robert P Igo; Jeremy Fondran; V Vinod Mootha; Matt Oliva; Kristin Hammersmith; Alan Sugar; Jonathan H Lass; Sudha K Iyengar Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Maryam Ali; VijayKrishna Raghunathan; Jennifer Y Li; Christopher J Murphy; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Yi-Ju Li; Mollie A Minear; Jacqueline Rimmler; Bei Zhao; Elmer Balajonda; Michael A Hauser; R Rand Allingham; Allen O Eghrari; S Amer Riazuddin; Nicholas Katsanis; John D Gottsch; Simon G Gregory; Gordon K Klintworth; Natalie A Afshari Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tamer A Mansour; Katherine Lucot; Sara E Konopelski; Peter J Dickinson; Beverly K Sturges; Karen L Vernau; Shannon Choi; Joshua A Stern; Sara M Thomasy; Sophie Döring; Frank J M Verstraete; Eric G Johnson; Daniel York; Robert B Rebhun; Hsin-Yi Henry Ho; C Titus Brown; Danika L Bannasch Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Sara M Thomasy; Dennis E Cortes; Alyssa L Hoehn; Allison C Calderon; Jennifer Y Li; Christopher J Murphy Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sarah R Michalak; Soohyun Kim; Sangwan Park; M Isabel Casanova; Morgan A W Bowman; Michelle Ferneding; Brian C Leonard; Kathryn L Good; Jennifer Y Li; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.048