Understanding Primary and Secondary Skin Lesions among Infectious Dermatoses in Dogs: Lessons We Learned from Cases

Öz

Dermatological diseases in dogs are one of the most common problems observed among small animal veterinary practice. Recent clinical research has led to marked advances in understanding, including the recognition that a wide spectrum of clinical severity exists and that utility and comments of skin lesions are significantly more complex than originally thought. The present article addresses some of the most common clinical questions relevant to canine dermatology cases and scenarios surrounding it, with the hope to convey the improved understanding and the condition’s wide spectrum of complexity learned from cases observed within the last 10 years cared. The medical records and clinical, dermatological and microbiological signs along with accompanying available laboratory findings of 86 dogs diagnosed with various infectious dermatoses with primary and/or secondary skin lesions were reviewed in an attempt to elucidate the etiology. Available retrospective records were evaluated for information on dermatological lesion appearence, and if possible clinical analyte abnormalities. A methodological series of diagnostic tests included physical and dermatological examinations, deep skin scraping, fecal analysis, microbiological and mycological cultures and IFAT, available. Diagnosis included sarcoptic mange n=18, group I , dermatophytosis n=14, group II , malassezia dermatitis n=14, group III , leishmaniasis n=12, group IV , demodicosis n=20, group V , hookworm dermatitis n=4 , pelodera dermatitis n=2 , and cutaneous Neosporosis n=2 . Median alopecia, hyperpgimentation and lichenification scores showed no significant changes among the infectious dermatoses groups, whereas median crusting, scaling and comedo scores presented a statistically significant difference among groups at the level of p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dog,primary,secondary,skin,lesions

Köpeklerde İnfeksiyöz Dermatozlarda Primer ve Sekonder Deri Lezyonlarını Anlamak: Olgulardan Edindiğimiz Dersler

Öz

Dermatolojik hastalıklar küçük hayvan veteriner hekimliğinde pratikte en sık gözlemlenen problemlerden birisidir. Son yıllardaki klinik araştırmalarla, geniş spekturumda farklı derecelerde klinik bulguların şekillendiğinin anlaşılmasıyla deri lezyonlarının özellikleri ve yorumlanmasının aslında düşünülenden daha da kompleks olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu araştırma makalesinde köpeklerde sıklıkla karşılaşılan dermatolojik problemlere ve bu çerçevede oluşan olgu akışına işaret edilirken, son 10 yılda karşılaşılan vakaların karmaşıklığı ve klinik bulguların geniş yelpazede seyrinin daha iyi anlaşılabilmesine katkı sağlanabileceği düşünülmüştür. Primer ve/veya sekonder deri lezyonu gösteren, çeşitli infeksiyöz dermatolojik bozukluğa sahip 86 köpekte mümkün olan medikal kayıt, klinik, dermatolojik ve mikrobiyolojik bulgular etiyolojik değerlendirilme amacıyla derlendi. Eldeki retrospektif kayıtlar doğrultusunda dermatolojik lezyonun görünümü, ve mümkünse klinik analiz sonuçları değerlendirildi. Metodolojik olarak uygulanan diyagnostik testler; fiziksel ve dermatolojik muayene bulguları, derin deri kazıntısı, dışkı tahlili, mikrobiyolojik ve mikolojik kültür ve olası IFAT sonuçlarıydı. Sarkoptik uyuz n=18, I. grup , dermatofitozis n=14, II. grup , malassezia dermatitis n=14, III. grup , leishmaniazis n=12, IV. grup , demodikozis n=20, V. grup , kancalı kurt dermatitis n=4 , pelodera dermatitis n=2 ve kutanöz neosporozis n=2 tanısı konulan olgular çalışmaya dahil edildi. Gruplar arasında ortanca alopesi, hiperpigmentasyon ve likhenifikasyon skorları istatiksel açıdan farklılık göstermezken, ortanca kabuklanma, kepeklenme ve komedon skorlarının gruplar arasında p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Köpek,primer,sekonder,deri,lezyonları

Kaynakça

1. Abranches P, Silva-Pereira MC, Conceicao-Silva FM, Santos-Gomes GM, Janz JG (1991). Canine leishmaniasis: Pathological and ecological factors influencing transmission of infection. Journal of Parasitology, 77, 557-561.
2. Alhaidari Z (1988). Les lesions elementaires dermatologiques. Pratique Medicale Et Chirurgicale De L Animal De Compagnie, 1988, 23,101.
3. Baker KP, Grimes TD (1970). Cutaneous lesions in dog assocaited with hookworm infestations. Veterinary Record, 87, 376-379.
4. Baker KP (1981). Clinical aspects of hookworm dermatitis. The British Veterinary Dermatology Study Group Newsletter, 6, 69-74.
5. Basso W, Venturini L, M., Venturini C, Moore P, Rambeau M, Unzaga JM, Campero C, Bacigalupe D, Dubey JP (2001). Prevalence of Neospora caninum Infection in Dogs From Beef-Cattle Farms, Dairy Farms, and From Urban Areas of Argentina. Journal of Parasitology, 87(4), 906-907.
6. Carlotti DN, Bensignor E (1999). Dermatophytosis due to Microsporum persicolor (13 cases) or Microsporum gypseum (20 cases) in the dog. Veterinary Dermatology, 10, 17–27.
7. Ciaramella P, Oliva G, De Luna R, Ambrosio R, Cortese L, Persechino A, Gradoni L, Scalone A. (1997) A retrospective clinical study of canine leishmaniasis in 150 dogs naturally infected by Leishmania infantum. Veterinary Record, 141, 539–43.
8. Čonková E, Sesztáková E, Páleník Ľ, Smrčo P, Bílek J (2011). Prevalence of Malassezia pachydermatis in dogs with suspected Malassezia dermatitis or otitis in Slovakia. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 80, 249–254.

9. Değer TB (2012). Köpeklerde sarkoptik uyuz sağaltımında topikal eprinomektin ile permetrinin etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü İç Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı VİH-YL-2012-0001. Danışman Doç. Dr. Kerem Ural.
10. Feather L, Gough K, Flynn RJ, Elsheikha HM (2010). A retrospective investigation into risk factors of sarcoptic mange in dogs. Parasitological Research, 107(2), 279-283.
11. Ferrer L (2002) Canine leishmaniasis: update on diagnosis and therapy. In: Proceedings of the 18th ESVD/ECVD Meeting, Nice, pp. 101–3.
12. Ferrer L, Rabanal R, Fondevila D et al (1988) Skin lesions in canine leishmaniasis. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 29, 381–8.
13. Foil CS (1998). Dermatophytosis. In: Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat, 2nd edition, CE Greene (Eds), WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 362–70.
14. Gross TL, Ihrke PJ, Walder EJ, Affolter VK (2005). Clinical and histopathological diagnosis. Skin diseases of the dog and cat. 2nd edition, Blackwell Science.
15. Harvey R (2008). Understanding primary skin lesions. Cut-out and keep guide. Veterinary Focus, 18(1), 47-48.
16. Izdebska JN, Fryderyk S (2011). Diversity of three species of the genus Demodex (Acari, Demodecidae) parasitizing dogs in Poland. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 20(3), 565-569.
17. Karakurum MC, Ural K, Cıngı CC, Guzel M, Haydardedeoglu AE, Borku MK (2007). Evaluation of ivermectin tablets in the treatment of generalized canine demodicosis. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire, 158, 380-383.
18. Koutinas AF, Polizopoulou ZS, Saridomichelakis MN, Argyriadis D, Fytianou A, Plevraki KG (1999). Clinical considerations on canine visceral leishmaniasis in Greece: a retrospective study of 158 cases (1989–1996). Journal of American Animal Hospital Association, 35, 376–83.
19. Mason KV, Evans AG (1991). Dermatitis associated with Malasezzia pachydermatitis in eleven dogs. Journal of American Animal Hospital Association, 27, 13-20.
20. Pin D, Bensignor E, Carlotti DN, Cadiergues MC (2006). Localised sarcoptic mange in dogs: a retrospective study of 10 cases. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 47(10), 611-614.
21. Rendle DI, Cottle HJ, Love S, Hughes KJ (2007). Comparative study of doramectin and fipronil in the treatment of equine chorioptic mange. Veterinary Record, 161, 335-338.
22. Saari SAM, Nikander SE (2006 Pelodera (syn. Rhabditis) strongyloides as a cause of dermatitis a report of 11 dogs from Finland. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 48(18), 1-7.
23. Scott DW (1981). Examination of the integumentary system. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 13, 149.
24. Scott DW, Miller WH, Griffin CE (2001). Muller and Kirks’s Small Animal Dermatology. 6th ed, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 71-207; 339– 361; 457-474.
25. Senczek D, Siesenop U, Böhm KH (1999). Characterization of Malassezia species by means of phenotypic characteristics and detection of electrophoretic karyotypes by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Mycoses, 42, 409–414
26. Slappendel RJ (1988) Canine leishmaniasis: a review based on 95 cases in The Netherlands. The Veterinary Quarterly, 10, 1–16.
27. Slappendel RJ, Ferrer L (1998). Leishmaniasis. In: Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat, 2nd edition, CE Greene (Eds),W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 450–8.
28. Ural K, Karakurum MÇ, Duru Ö, Cıngı CÇ, Haydardedeoğlu AE (2009). Serum zinc concentrations in dogs with Microsporum canis dermatophytosis: a pilot study. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science, 33: 279-283
29. Ural K, Özyıldız Z, Yılmaz R (2012). Clinical and histopathological findings in German shepherd dogs with hookworm dermatitis and the usage of eprinomectin in the therapy. Veterinarija Ir Zootechnika (Vet Med Zoot). 57 (79), 67-71