Evidence Hub

A correlation of computed tomographic esophageal hiatal cross-sectional surface area between brachycephalic and nonbrachycephalic cats

Uhjin Kim, Jiyoung Ban, Jinhwa Chang, Kwangyong Yoon, Byeongjin Kim, S. In, Jihyeon Park, Hyounglok Yoon et al.

Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 2024

1 citation

Abstract

In humans and dogs, especially brachycephalics, enlargement of the esophageal hiatus and insufficiency have been correlated with decreased lower esophageal sphincter pressure and increased frequency of gastroesophageal reflux. In cats, it has been suggested that gastroesophageal reflux occurs frequently with upper airway obstruction, including brachycephalics. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine whether the esophageal hiatal cross-sectional surface area (EH-CSA) differs between brachycephalic and nonbrachycephalic cats. Clinical records and CT images of cats that underwent thoracic, abdominal, and entire skull CT at multiple centers between January 2015 and September 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Esophageal hiatal parameters (EH-CSA, EH-long axis diameter, and EH-short axis diameter) and craniometric indices (cranial index, skull index, and facial index) were measured by using multiplanar reconstruction, and the correlation of craniometry with EH-CSA was investigated. Ninety-eight cats (group 1: 42 brachycephalic cats and group 2: 56 nonbrachycephalic cats) were included. Esophageal hiatal cross-sectional surface area in brachycephalic cats was significantly larger than that in nonbrachycephalic cats. The EH-CSA significantly increased with the craniometric indices tending to increase with brachycephalism. The present study contributes to the veterinary literature by providing the EH-CSA as anatomical evidence that could likely correlate to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free