Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 54 issue 10 (october 2020) : 1309-1313

Cytological and Microbiological Analysis of Canine Otitis Externa

V.V. Karnad, K. Jeyaraja, K. Vijayarani, S. Vairamuthu, S. Subapriya, B.S.M. Ronald
1Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, Madras Veterinary College, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai–600 007, Tamil Nadu, India.
Cite article:- Karnad V.V., Jeyaraja K., Vijayarani K., Vairamuthu S., Subapriya S., Ronald B.S.M. (2020). Cytological and Microbiological Analysis of Canine Otitis Externa. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 54(10): 1309-1313. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-3882.
The ear discharge of fifteen dogs was examined for cytological and microbiological evaluation along with antibiotic sensitivity testing. The ear discharge of ten healthy dogs was also analyzed for comparative data. Cytological analysis showed that inflammatory cells and rod shaped organisms in highly infected cases. Otic microbiota in healthy cases revealed  Bacillus spp. and Staphylococcus spp., while in clinical cases Pseudomonas spp., E coli, Klebsiella spp. and Alcaligenes spp., were also identified by using universal primer 16S rRNA PCR. The yeast Malassezia pachydermatis was isolated from ear discharge of all dogs. Among the anti – microbial drugs tested, Gentamicin had the most effective response against the otic microbes, followed by ciprofloxacin while neomycin had the least.
  1. Angus, J.C. and Campbell, K.L. (2001). Uses and indications for video – otoscopy in small animal practice. The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice. 31: 809–828.
  2. Bauer, A. W., Kirby, W. M., Sherris, J. C. and Turk, M. (1966). Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disc method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 45: 493– 496. 
  3. Coatesworth, J. (2011). Examination of the canine ear. UK Vet Companion Animal. 16: 31–35.
  4. Coyner, K. (2010). Otomycosis due to Aspergillus spp. in a dog: case report and literature review. Veterinary dermatology. 21: 613–618.
  5. Eger, C.E. and Lindsay, P. (1997). Effects of otitis on hearing in dogs characterised by brainstem auditory evoked response testing. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 38: 380–386.
  6. Ghibaudo, G. and Peano, A. (2010). Chronic monolateral otomycosis in a dog caused by Aspergillus ochraceus. Veterinary Dermatology. 21: 522 – 526.
  7. Ginel, P. J., Lucena R., Rodriguez, J. C. and Ortega, J. (2002). A semiquantitative cytological evaluation of normal and pathological samples from the external ear canal of dogs and cats. Veterinary Dermatology. 13:151 – 156.
  8. Hariharan, H., Coles, M., Poole, D., Lund, L. and Page, R. (2006). Update on antimicrobial susceptibilities of bacterial isolates from canine and feline otitis externa. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 47: 253.
  9. Kumar, K. S., Selvaraj, P., Vairamuthu, S., Shammi, M. and Kathiseran, D. (2010). Antibiogram Pattern of Microbes Isolated from Otitis Externa of Dogs. Tamil Nadu: Tamilnadu Journal Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 6:145–147.
  10. Lysková, P., Vydržalová, M., Královcová, D. and Mazurová, J. (2007). Prevalence and characteristics of Streptococcus canis strains isolated from dogs and cats. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 76: 619–625.
  11. Narayanan, A., Gowri, B., Kavitha, S. and Subapriya, S. (2015). Comparative study of ear microflora in clinically healthy and dogs with dermatitis. International Journal of Advanced Biological Sciences. 2: 1–6.
  12. Oliveira, L.C., Leite, C.A., Brilhante, R.S. and Carvalho, C.B. (2008). Comparative study of the microbial profile from bilateral canine otitis externa. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 49: 78–788.
  13. Oliveira, V.B., Ribeiro, M.G., Almeida, A.C., Paes, A.C., Condas, L.A.Z., Lara, G.H.B., et al. (2012). Etiology, antimicrobial susceptibility profile and epidemiological aspects in canine otitis: a retrospective study of 616 cases. Semina: Agrarian Sciences. 33: 2367–2374.
  14. Perry, L.R., MacLennan, B., Korven, R. and Rawlings, T.A. (2017). Epidemiological study of dogs with otitis externa in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 58: 168–174.
  15. Petrov, V., Mihaylov, G., Tsachev, I., Zhelev, G., Marutsov, P. and Koev, K. (2013). Otitis externa in dogs: microbiology and antimicrobial susceptibility. Revue Med. Vet. 164: 18–22.
  16. Quinn, P.J., Carter, M.E., Markey, B.K. and Carter, G.R. (1994). Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, Wolfe Publishing, London.
  17. Radlinsky, M.G. (2016). Advances in otoscopy. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice. 46: 171–179.
  18. Saridomichelakis, M.N., Farmaki, R., Leontides, L.S. and Koutinas, A.F. (2007). Aetiology of canine otitis externa: a retrospective study of 100 cases. Veterinary Dermatology. 18: 341–347.
  19. Shaw, S. (2016). Pathogens in otitis externa: diagnostic techniques to identify secondary causes of ear disease. In Practice. 38: 12–16.
  20. Subapriya, S., Senthil, N. R., Vairamuthu, S., Nagarajan, B., Kavitha, S. and George, R. S. (2015). A study on microbial profile and trend in antimicrobial susceptibility of canine otitis. International Journal of Livestock Research. 5: 43–48.
  21. Sula, M.J.M. (2012). Tumors and tumorlike lesions of dog and cat ears. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice. 42: 1161–    1178.
  22. Zur, G. (2005). Bilateral ear canal neoplasia in three dogs. Veterinary Dermatology. 16: 276–280.
  23. Zur, G., Lifshitz, B. and Bdolah–Abram, T. (2011). The association between the signalment, common causes of canine otitis externa and pathogens. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 52: 254–258.

Editorial Board

View all (0)