title: Cytology of the healthy canine and feline ocular surface: comparison between cytobrush and impression technique.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Impression cytology (IC) is a noninvasive technique in which filters are used to sample superficial layers of ocular epithelium.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to compare cytology specimens obtained by IC and cytobrush from healthy canine and feline eyes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Dogs and cats were prospectively sampled using polytetrafluorethylene filters on the right eye, and cytobrush on the left eye. Wright-Giemsa-stained specimens were evaluated by 2 observers. Cellularity, preservation, and morphology of cells and presence of goblet and inflammatory cells were scored with a 4-grade scale. Inter-observer agreement and effects of topical anesthesia were analyzed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In 20 canine IC samples, 10 showed good cellularity (score 2-3) and 13 good preservation. Superficial epithelial cells (SEC) were present in 13/20 of IC, while basal-intermediate cells (BIC) were seen in 14/20. In 6/20 and 7/20, goblet and inflammatory cells were noted, respectively. In 20 cats, 15 of IC showed good cellularity and 14 good preservation, and SEC were present in 16/20 of IC and BIC in 17/20. In 13/20 and 3/20 cats, goblet cells and inflammatory cells were noted, respectively. Canine cytobrush specimens appeared well preserved (9/20) and had good cellularity (8/20). In feline cytobrush specimens, good preservation and cellularity were observed in 16/20 and 14/20, respectively. In both species, all cell types were present without a clear separation. There was moderate to fair agreement about cellular morphology in IC between observers. Specimens obtained with and without anesthesia were comparable.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Impression cytology allowed collection of samples with maintained cytoarchitecture, while cytoplasmatic and nuclear details were often difficult to evaluate.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Anna
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Perazzi
authors.affiliation: Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Federico
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Bonsembiante
authors.affiliation: Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Maria Elena
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Gelain
authors.affiliation: Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Patruno
authors.affiliation: Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Enzo
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Di Iorio
authors.affiliation: Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Angelo
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Migliorati
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
authors.forename: Ilaria
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Iacopetti
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002415:Cats; D003228:Conjunctiva / Q000166:cytology; D003581:Cytodiagnosis / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D003593:Cytoplasm; D004285:Dogs; D004847:Epithelial Cells / Q000166:cytology; D005260:Female; D020397:Goblet Cells / Q000166:cytology; D008297:Male; D013048:Specimen Handling / Q000662:veterinary*
keywords: Cat; conjunctiva; cornea; dog; healthy; impression cytology