Article Text

PDF
Dogs
Fatal pneumothorax in a dog caused by a lesion resembling congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM) of children
  1. Cameron Knight1,
  2. Lorenza Malaguti2,
  3. Sophie Rajotte3,
  4. Brielle Rosa4 and
  5. James Wright Jr5
  1. 1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Clinical & Diagnostic Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
  2. 2Western Veterinary Specialist and Emergency Center, Calgary, Canada
  3. 3University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, Illinois, USA
  4. 4Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Ecosystem & Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
  5. 5Pathology & Laboratory Medicine/Paediatrics, Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cameron Knight, cgknight{at}ucalgary.ca

Abstract

An 8 month old boxer dog was referred for management of acute spontaneous pneumothorax. CT showed multiple variably sized bullae in the right middle lung lobe, and partial or complete atelectasis of all remaining lung lobes. This was assumed to be a case of congenital lobar emphysema (CLE). The dog was anaesthetised for surgery but died from cardiopulmonary arrest during presurgical thoracocentesis. Postmortem examination confirmed that ruptured bullae in the right middle lung lobe were responsible for the dog's pneumothorax and death. In addition, a malformation of the right subclavian artery was present. Histologically, the right middle lung lobe and primary bronchus were malformed, with microscopic changes resembling those of human congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM), rather than CLE. CPAM has not been reported in the veterinary literature and should be considered in the differential diagnosis for spontaneous pneumothorax in dogs.

  • Lung disease
  • Congenital pulmonary airway malformation
  • Pneumothorax
  • Congenital lobar emphysema
  • Dogs

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors on this paper fulfil the criteria for authorship according to BMJ and ICMJE recommendations. CK performed and interpreted the postmortem examination and histopathology for the dog. He took the gross and microscopic photographs for the manuscript. In consultation with paediatric pathologists he arrived at the diagnosis. He contributed substantially to creation and revision of the manuscript, in particular the gross and histological descriptions. He approved and submitted the final version. LM's and SR's contributions were similar. They admitted the dog while alive, worked up the case and performed imaging studies (radiography and CT). They recognised that this case was unusual and arranged for postmortem examination and histopathology. They wrote the clinical information in the manuscript and provided CT images and interpretation. They obtained permission from the dog's owner to publish this case. They edited and revised manuscript drafts and approved the final version. BR conceived the focus of the manuscript in terms of CLE versus CPAM. She drafted the majority of the discussion in which CLE and CPAM are compared, reviewed the human and veterinary literature, and thoroughly analysed previously reported cases of CLE in dogs. She edited and revised manuscript drafts and approved the final version. JW, in consultation with CK and six paediatric pathologists determined the diagnosis of CPAM and advised on human criteria for distinguishing CLE from CPAM. He contributed substantially to the gross and histological descriptions and edited and revised manuscript drafts. He approved the final version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.