Ultrasonographic biometry of cyclic and non-cyclic ovaries of queens

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/01/2017
Views (240) Download (7)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Ultrasonographic biometry of cyclic and non-cyclic ovaries of queens

Depeesh Kumar Bhuptani, Allah Bux Memon, Hubdar Ali Kaleri, Rameez Raja Kaleri, Mujahid Ali Shah, Raza Ali Mangi, Zafar Khoso, Muhammad Amjad Jakhro, Syed Rashid Shah, Khurram Shah, Mujahid Ali Shah, Sheva Dari
Int. J. Biosci.10( 1), 285-293, January 2017.
Certificate: IJB 2017 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

In order to evaluate the morphological characteristics and ultrasonographic biometrical echo characteristics of cyclic and non-cyclic ovaries in queens, the studies were carried out during the year 2012. Ultrasonographic biometry of left ovaries of non-cyclic queens showed 10.05 ±2.40 mm length, 5.27±1.11 mm width, 3.20±0.33 mm thickness, 25.1±2.71 mm circumference, 0.14±0.08 g weight and 0.40±0.13 cm2 volume; while their right ovaries showed 10.35±4.34 mm length, 4.70±0.90 mm width, 2.90±0.62 mm thickness, 24.10±8.93 mm circumference, 0.16±0.10 g weight and 0.40±0.17 cm2 volume. The examination on left ovaries of queens showed 3.75 ± 0.95 primary follicles, 3.75±0.50 secondary follicles, 3.25±1.50 tertiary follicles; while their right ovaries of queens showed 4.00±1.41 primary follicles, 3.25±1.25 secondary follicles, 3.00±1.15 tertiary follicles. It was concluded that the health and body condition score was significantly better for cyclic queens as compared to non-cyclic queens. Morpho-biometry measurements were higher in case of left ovaries than the right ovaries. Ultrasonographic biometry measurements were higher for left ovaries than the right ovaries of queens. Number of secondary follicles differed significantly in left and right ovary and non-significant for primary and tertiary follicles; there were non-significant differences in Morpho-biometry measurements in non-cyclic and cyclic queens.

VIEWS 12

Belsito KR, Vester BM, Keel T, Graves TK, Swanson KS. 2008. Impact of ovariohysterectomy and food intake on body composition, physical activity, and adipose gene expression in cats. Journal of Animal Science 20(2), 287-292.

Catbagan DL, Quimby JM, Mama KR, Rychel JK, Mich PM. 2011. Study the effects of ovariohysterectomy and biometry of ovaries using ultrasound machine in cats. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 72(4), 461-466.

Coe RJ, Grint MA, Tivers MS, Hotston A. 2007. Comparison of flank and midline approaches to the ovariohysterectomy of cats. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 19(3), 566-572.

Moser FB, Eilts BE and Williams DB. 2007. Ultrasonic measurement of queens ovaries. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 2(5), 380-344.

Park M, Singh AM, Yahia M. 2011. Ovaries biometry and its relationship with body weight and semen output of queens. Journal of Surgery and Obstetrics 12(3), 55-59.

Place NJ, Hansen BS, Cheraskin JL, Cudney SE, Flanders JA, Newmark AD, Barry B, Scarlett JM. 2011. Study morpho-biometry in female cats. Journal of Veterinary Surgery 4(1), 22-27.

Pollari FL, Bonnett T. 2008. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records. Journal of Animal Science 47(4), 738-745.

Rohlertz M, Ström HB, Holst and Axner E. 2012. Comparison of ultrasonography and biometry of ovaries in cats. Journal of Animal Sciences 17(2), 291-298.

Settergren I. 1964. The ovarian morphology in clinical gonadal hypoplasia with some aspect of its endocrine relation. In  Acta  Veterinarian  Scandinviea.  Supp. I. Copenhagen p. 150-153.

Singh SS, Kelly AM, Konde LJ. 2009. Ovaries ultrasound in the normal cats. Journal of Veterinary Radiology 31(4), 195-199.

Steagall PVM, Taylor PM, Rodrigues MA, Ferreira TH, Min to BW, Aguiar AJA. 2009. Ultraonography biometry of ovaries in cats. Journal of Animal Science 38(2), 332-336.

Vaisanenm MA, Tuomikoski SK, Vainio OM. 2007. Behavioral alterations and severity of pain in cats recovering at home following elective ovariohysterectomy or castration. Journal of Small Animal Science 23(1), 236-242