Acute aortic rupture in a dog with spirocercosis following the administration of medetomidine.

Spirocercosis is an emerging disease in veterinary medicine. A strong suspicion of spirocercosis is usually evident after a thorough clinical examination and radiography of the chest has been performed. Lesions seen on radiography include an oesophageal mass, spondylitis and oesophageal air. Unfortunately, radiography is not diagnostic and additional diagnostic procedures are required to confirm the diagnosis. Endoscopy is commonly performed to diagnose the condition. The dog presented in this study had radiographic and clinical signs consistent with spirocercosis and definitive diagnosis was required. Shortly after sedation with medetomidine, the dog went into cardiac arrest and failed to respond to resuscitative measures. On post mortem, the diagnosis of spirocercosis was confirmed and the cause of death was identified as acute aortic rupture. Aortic aneurysms are not an uncommon finding and cause of acute death in dogs with spirocercosis. The acute rupture of the aorta in this case is most probably the result of cardiovascular changes associated with the administration of medetomidine. Medetomidine causes an acute rise in systemic vascular resistance with hypertension. The increase in shear stress across the weakened aortic wall resulted in rupture. Caution with the use of medetomidine in patients with spirocercosis is advised.

Vision screening, eye examination and risk assessment of display screen users in a large regional teaching hospital.

In January 1993 the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust, which employs approximately 5000 staff, implemented the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Northern Ireland Regulations (1992). During 1994 all regular display screen equipment users were offered a vision screening test. In total 571 employees were screened using computerized vision screening software (City Visual Systems Ltd). Risk assessments were completed for 293 display screen work-stations. One hundred and twelve full eye examinations, carried out by optometrists, were performed on those who failed vision screening and on those who specifically requested an optometric assessment. Results indicate that whereas the proportion of users experiencing visual and general symptoms differed markedly from department to department (28-82%), the median number of individuals failing the screening test was 25% (range 9-40%). Those involved in uninterrupted display screen equipment work for prolonged periods reported visual and general work-related symptoms twice as frequently as those who spent less time working with DSE. The outcome of full eye examinations confirmed that less than 5% of display screen users required spectacles solely for display screen use. Work-station analysis indicated that ergonomic problems were common. The authors conclude that the successful management of health risks from display screen equipment requires simultaneous attention to work-place design, working patterns and eye care.