COMPARATIVE STUDY OF METHODS OF HARVESTING AND STAINING FOR CONJUNCTIVAL CYTOLOGY IN NORMAL DOGS.

Abstract

Two harvesting techniques and two techniques of conjunctival staining samples were evaluated in order to provide the veterinary practitioner a low-cost, easy implementation and interpretation aid in the diagnosis of ocular surface disorders. We studied four experimental groups of 13 dogs each: GDAPR – brush cytology, right eye, Diff quick stain; GEIPN - impression cytology with transfer, left eye, Papanicolaou; GDAPN - brush cytology, right eye, Papanicolaou and GEIPR - impression cytology with transfer, left eye, Diff quick. The groups were evaluated for cost, time and ease of manufacture of the blades, optical microscopy and evaluated the preservation of cellular morphology, uniformity of color, the presence of artifacts and the staining intensity as well as characterization of cell structures. The brush cytology blades provided with richer cells while the method of impression cytology with transfer allowed the harvest without topical anesthesia and required appropriate filter paper, which is an expensive procedure. Both staining allowed the identification of different cells. The Diff quick stain was presented more quickly and easily, in relation to the execution, at lower cost. The Papanicolaou stain favored the characterization of cells and hence the reading of the slides. In the veterinary clinic, the method of harvesting by brush abrasion and Diff quick stain would be good choice because of the ease and speed of implementation and preparation of slides, indicating, however, the Papanicolaou stain in suspected tumor.