Journal article
A comparison of the cytobrush and uterine lavage techniques to evaluate endometrial cytology in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows
Canadian veterinary journal, Vol.46(3), pp.255-259
03/2005
Handle:
https://hdl.handle.net/2376/112182
PMCID: PMC1082871
PMID: 15884649
Abstract
This study compares cytobrush and lavage techniques for the assessment of endometrial cytology (EC) in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows. The EC samples were collected from Holstein cows (
n
= 35) during visit 1 (V1) at 20 to 33 d in milk (DIM) and 2 wk later during visit 2 (V2) at 34 to 47 DIM by using both techniques. A minimum of 100 cells were counted to determine the percentage of cells that were neutrophils (%PMN). The mean %PMN was significantly different between the techniques at V1 (
P
= 0.001), but not at V2 (
P
= 0.474). Overall, the %PMN decreased with time postpartum (r
2
= 0.36;
P
= 0.001), but not within V1 (
P >
0.05) or V2 (
P >
0.1). Uterine diameter was negatively correlated with fluid recovery by the lavage technique (r
2
= 0.41;
P
= 0.002). The mean %PMN was not influenced by the volume of fluid recovered in successful attempts, but 17% (12/70) of attempts yielded no fluid. In conclusion, the cytobrush technique is a consistent and reliable method for obtaining endometrial samples for cystologic examination from postpartum dairy cows.
Metrics
9 Record Views
Details
- Title
- A comparison of the cytobrush and uterine lavage techniques to evaluate endometrial cytology in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows
- Creators
- Ramanathan Kasimanickam - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1Todd F Duffield - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1Robert A Foster - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1Cathy J Gartley - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1Ken E Leslie - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1John S Walton - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1Walter. H Johnson - Department of Population Medicine (Kasimanickam, Duffield, Gartley, Leslie, Johnson); Department of Pathobiology (Foster); Department of Animal and Poultry Science (Walton) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
- Publication Details
- Canadian veterinary journal, Vol.46(3), pp.255-259
- Academic Unit
- Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Department of
- Publisher
- Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
- Identifiers
- 99900547585401842
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article