Oren Pe'er

Purpose Assess aqueous tear production when measured with the dogs' eyelids open or closed. Methods Thirty healthy dogs (15 Shih Tzus, 15 Labrador retrievers) were recruited. With the order of testing randomized for each dog, two sessions (separated by 30 min) of STT‐1 testing were performed with the dogs' eyelids closed or open. Schirmer strip wetness (every 10 s for 60 s) and number of time(s) the strip dislodged during testing were recorded in each eye. Preferred STT‐1 method was surveyed via a global Listserv of the veterinary ophthalmology community. Results STT‐1 values were significantly higher in closed versus open eyes in Shih Tzus (18.6 ± 2.7 mm/min vs. 16.3 ± 2.5 mm/min; p = .002) and Labrador retrievers (21.6 ± 2.9 mm/min vs. 17.8 ± 3.2 mm/min, p < .001), findings that were also significant at times <60 s for either breed ( p ≤ .004). Schirmer strips dislodged from six dogs with open eyelids and no dogs with closed eyelids. Maximal STT‐1 difference with closed versus open eyelids was 13 mm/min in Labrador retrievers and 7 mm/min in Shih Tzus. Survey results from 275 veterinarians showed STT‐1 performed with “closed eyelids” (38.5%), “open eyelids” (26.9%), or “never paid attention, sometimes closed, sometimes open” (34.6%). Conclusions Eyelids status (closed or open) during STT‐1 testing had a significant impact on aqueous tear secretion in brachycephalic and nonbrachycephalic dogs, highlighting the importance of consistency when repeating STT‐1 in a canine patient. STT‐1 differences are likely due to sustained reflex tearing throughout the test duration when the dogs' eyelids are closed.

Background Ophthalmoscopy is a valuable tool in clinical practice. We report the use of a novel smartphone‐based handheld device for visualisation and photo‐documentation of the ocular fundus in veterinary medicine. Methods Selected veterinary patients of a referral ophthalmology service were included if one or both eyes had clear ocular media, allowing for examination of the fundus. Following pharmacological mydriasis, fundic images were obtained with a handheld fundus camera (Volk VistaView). For comparison, the fundus of a subset of animals was also imaged with a veterinary‐specific fundus camera (Optomed Smartscope VET2). Results The large field of view achieved by the Volk VistaView allowed for rapid and thorough observation of the ocular fundus in animals, providing a tool to visualise and record common pathologies of the posterior segment. Captured fundic images were sometimes overexposed, with the tapetal fundus artificially appearing hyperreflective when using the Volk VistaView camera, a finding that was less frequent when activating a ‘veterinary mode’ that reduced the sensitivity of the camera's sensor. The Volk VistaView compared well with the Optomed Smartscope VET2. Limitation The main study limitation was the small sample size. Conclusions The Volk VistaView camera was easy to use and provided good‐quality fundic images in veterinary patients with healthy or diseased eyes, offering a wide field of view that was ideal for screening purposes.