Methods for glomerular quantification in dogs: A comparative study

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Caio Augusto Leles
dc.contributor.authorde Lima, Charles Silva
dc.contributor.authorUscategui, Ricardo Andres Ramirez [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Gyl Eanes Barros
dc.contributor.authorCrivellenti, Leandro Zuccolotto
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de Franca (UNIFRAN)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T15:38:08Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T15:38:08Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01
dc.description.abstractIt was evaluated the different methodologies for glomerular enumeration described in the literature in a quantitative, double-blind study on the number of glomeruli present in kidney biopsy specimens obtained using a Tru-cut-type biopsy needle. Eighteen samples were taken (n=18) from various regions of canine kidneys harvested immediately after euthanasia. Sample collection was carried out using Tru-cut-type, semi-automated, 16 gauge needles. Reading and evaluation of the specimens were performed independently by four researchers by means of eye loupe inspection, light microscopy, light microscopy with a reduced condenser aperture, and dissection microscopy. Samples were also subjected to histopathological evaluation for comparison purposes. There was no inter-researcher variation for any of the tested methods. The glomerular counts obtained using light microscopy with reduced condenser aperture were similar to those reported in the histopathological evaluation (P=0.44);whereas, the other glomerular enumeration methods yielded significantly lower counts when compared to the histopathological analysis (eye loupe inspection: P<0.01; conventional light microscopy: P=0.02; dissection microscopy: P<0.01).Light microscope with lowering of the condenser lens delivers better results than conventional light microscopy and eye loupe inspection. Results obtained using dissection microscopy and eye loupe inspection did not correlate well with those provided by histopathological evaluation; consequently, these two methods should be avoided.en
dc.description.affiliationHospital Veterinário Universidade de Franca (UNIFRAN)
dc.description.affiliationDepartamento de Clínica e Cirurgia Veterinária Universidade de São Paulo (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationDepartamento de Patologia Renal Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartamento de Clínica e Cirurgia Veterinária Universidade de São Paulo (UNESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: #2014/21506-2
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180851
dc.identifier.citationCiencia Rural, v. 49, n. 3, 2019.
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/0103-8478cr20180851
dc.identifier.issn1678-4596
dc.identifier.issn0103-8478
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85063629924
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/187502
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCiencia Rural
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectGlomerulopathy
dc.subjectHistopathology
dc.subjectLight microscopy
dc.titleMethods for glomerular quantification in dogs: A comparative studyen
dc.titleMetodologias para quantificação glomerular em cães: Um estudo comparativopt
dc.typeArtigo
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-3535-5798[1]

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos