» Articles » PMID: 33291463

An Exploration of the Value of Elective Health Checks in UK Zoo-Housed Gibbons

Overview
Journal Animals (Basel)
Date 2020 Dec 9
PMID 33291463
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Elective health checks form an important part of the preventative healthcare of many zoo-housed animals. These procedures are not without risk or financial expenditure, meaning careful cost-benefit analysis is required when determining the frequency and intensity with which they are implemented. This study evaluated the value of elective health checks ( = 74) carried out on 33 gibbons at a single UK zoological collection from 2011 to 2018. Data were categorised by health check type, animal age, clinical findings and outcome. Univariable binary logistic regression and multivariable modelling were used to identify factors associated with the likelihood of actionable (clinically significant) outcomes. In total, 51.35% of all elective health checks resulted in an actionable outcome. Elderly heath checks had 13.64 times greater odds of an actionable outcome and 34 times greater odds of a significant radiographic finding, when compared to routine (non-elderly) health checks. Our findings suggest that 75% wild longevity is a suitable threshold for identifying elderly captive gibbons and increasing health check frequency. Whilst further work is needed to ascertain whether these findings can be extrapolated to other collections and/or species, this study demonstrates how the analysis of clinical data can aid in the implementation of an effective and evidence-based preventative healthcare plan.

Citing Articles

Serum protein electrophoresis in European mink (): reference intervals and comparison of agarose gel electrophoresis and capillary zone electrophoresis.

Villanueva-Saz S, Del Carmen Aranda M, Jimenez M, de Andres P, Verde M, Climent M Vet Q. 2024; 44(1):1-11.

PMID: 38389258 PMC: 10896155. DOI: 10.1080/01652176.2024.2318195.


Utilizing a Theory of Change for Better Health Outcomes.

Lamberski N Front Vet Sci. 2022; 9:929365.

PMID: 35847631 PMC: 9282891. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.929365.

References
1.
Fowkes F, Lunn J, Farrow S, Robertson I, Samuel P . Epidemiology in anaesthesia. III: Mortality risk in patients with coexisting physical disease. Br J Anaesth. 1982; 54(8):819-25. DOI: 10.1093/bja/54.8.819. View

2.
Tiret L, Desmonts J, Hatton F, Vourch G . Complications associated with anaesthesia--a prospective survey in France. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1986; 33(3 Pt 1):336-44. DOI: 10.1007/BF03010747. View

3.
Brodbelt D . Feline anesthetic deaths in veterinary practice. Top Companion Anim Med. 2010; 25(4):189-94. DOI: 10.1053/j.tcam.2010.09.007. View

4.
Proudman C, Dugdale A, Senior J, Edwards G, Smith J, Leuwer M . Pre-operative and anaesthesia-related risk factors for mortality in equine colic cases. Vet J. 2006; 171(1):89-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.09.005. View

5.
Bille C, Auvigne V, Libermann S, Bomassi E, Durieux P, Rattez E . Risk of anaesthetic mortality in dogs and cats: an observational cohort study of 3546 cases. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2011; 39(1):59-68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2011.00686.x. View