@article{mur_appleby_phillips_singh_monteith_gilmour_keenihan_daniaux_linden_2024, title={Radiographic findings in dogs with 360 degrees gastric dilatation and volvulus}, ISSN={["1740-8261"]}, DOI={10.1111/vru.13445}, abstractNote={Gastric dilatation and volvulus (GDV) is a life-threatening emergency that requires urgent intervention. Radiographic features associated with 360-GDV in dogs have not been investigated. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to describe radiographic features and clinical variables in dogs affected with 360-GDV and to report agreement rates between different radiologists. We also report the sensitivity and specificity of radiographs to diagnose 360-GDV in dogs. Confirmed 360-GDV cases were retrieved, and the radiographic findings were compared with dogs presenting with gastric dilatation (GD) and 180-GDV. Images were reviewed and graded by three blinded board-certified radiologists. A total of 16 dogs with confirmed 360-GDV were identified. The median age was 10 years old (2-13 years). The sensitivity for detection of 360-GDV ranged between 43.7% and 50%, and the specificity between 84.6% and 92.1%. Interobserver agreement on final diagnosis was substantial (Kappa = 0.623; 0.487-0.760, 95% CI). The highest agreement rate was in cases of 180-GDV (87%), followed by the GD cases (72%) and 360-GDV (46%). Severe esophageal distension and absence of small intestinal dilation were the only radiographic features specifically associated with 360-GDV. A similar pyloric position was found between GD and 360-GDV. Additional radiographic variables that could help differentiate GD from 360-GDV include the degree of gastric distension and the peritoneal serosal contrast. Two cases with 360-GDV were misdiagnosed by the three radiologists as GD. In conclusion, radiographically, 360-GDV cases can reassemble GD and vice versa. Radiologists and clinicians should be aware of the low sensitivity of radiographs for the detection of 360-GDV.}, journal={VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND}, author={Mur, Pablo Espinosa and Appleby, Ryan and Phillips, Kathryn L. and Singh, Ameet and Monteith, Gabrielle and Gilmour, Lindsey J. and Keenihan, Erin and Daniaux, Lise and Linden, Alex}, year={2024}, month={Oct} }
 @article{appleby_roode_cohen_2018, title={What Is Your Diagnosis?}, volume={32}, ISSN={["1938-2871"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1647/2017-278}, DOI={10.1647/2017-278}, abstractNote={A 3-year-old female chicken presented for a 3week history of progressive coelomic distention. Over the 36 hours prior to presentation, the patient was lethargic, showed progressive weakness, and had a decreased appetite. The patient had last laid an egg 2 months prior to presentation, and was otherwise healthy with no previous health concerns. On presentation, the patient was quiet, alert, and responsive, with a decreased body condition score (keel score 2/5) and was 5% dehydrated based on decreased skin turgor. The patient’s respiratory rate and effort increased with the stress of handling, but heart rate was low-normal. The skin at the caudal aspect of the keel had hyperkeratinization. The coelom was severely distended and firm on palpation, with a large region of patchy feather loss and erythema caudoventrally. Surrounding the vent extending to the ventral coelom, fetid-smelling, white to yellow cloacal discharge and staining were present. The feather quality was poor with broken primary feathers on both wings and tattered feathers over the remainder of the body. Physical examination findings were consistent with coelomic effusion. The skin lesions were suspected to be secondary to mechanical injury from the degree of coelomic distention resulting in sagging against the ground; trauma from conspecifics was also considered. Based on physical examination findings and clinical history, a coelomic ultrasound was performed (Fig 1).}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF AVIAN MEDICINE AND SURGERY}, author={Appleby, Ryan B. and Roode, Sarah C. and Cohen, Eli B.}, year={2018}, month={Dec}, pages={351–355} }