title: Clinical findings and results of diagnostic imaging in 82 dogs with gastrointestinal ulceration.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe clinical and imaging findings in dogs with confirmed gastrointestinal ulceration, to compare findings in dogs with perforated and non-perforated ulcers and to estimate the sensitivities of radiography, ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) for gastrointestinal ulceration and perforation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective review of medical records of 82 dogs that had a macroscopic ulcer in the gastric or intestinal mucosa diagnosed directly at endoscopy, surgery or necropsy and had survey radiography, ultrasonography or a CT scan of the abdomen during the same period of hospitalisation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The most frequent clinical signs were vomiting in 88% dogs, haematemesis in 32%, melaena in 31% and weight loss in 7%. The most frequent imaging findings in dogs with non-perforated ulcers were gastrointestinal mural lesion in 56%, mucosal defect compatible with an ulcer in 44% and peritoneal fluid in 21%. In dogs with perforated ulcers the most frequent imaging findings were peritoneal fluid in 83%, gastrointestinal mural lesion in 48%, peritoneal gas in 31% and mucosal defect compatible with an ulcer in 29%. Sensitivities of radiography, ultrasonography and CT were 30, 65 and 67% in dogs with non-perforated ulcers and 79, 86 and 93% in dogs with perforated ulcers, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In dogs with non-perforated ulcers, survey radiography was usually negative whereas ultrasonography and CT frequently enabled detection of the site of the ulcer; in dogs with perforated ulcers, radiography was frequently positive for peritoneal gas and CT was a sensitive modality for both the ulcer and signs of perforation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK.
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Fitzgerald
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK.
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Barfield
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK.
authors.forename: K C L
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK.
authors.forename: C R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Lamb
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004283:Dog Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D004285:Dogs; D005260:Female; D007410:Intestinal Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000662:veterinary*; D008297:Male; D011860:Radiography, Abdominal / Q000662:veterinary; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013276:Stomach Ulcer / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000662:veterinary*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000662:veterinary; D014456:Ulcer / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000662:veterinary*; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000662:veterinary