ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2026
Clinical outcomes of lateral ear canal resection performed in routine clinical practice for chronic otitis externa in dogs: a retrospective descriptive study of 58 ears (2016-2025).
Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of lateral ear canal resection performed as part of routine clinical practice for chronic otitis externa in dogs, and to re-evaluate the practical utility of lateral ear canal resection from the perspective of contemporary treatment goals emphasising long-term maintenance of a manageable condition.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study was conducted involving 40 dogs (58 ears) that underwent lateral ear canal resection performed by a single non-specialist surgeon at a single primary care facility between May 2016 and March 2025, with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months. Lateral ear canal resection was performed whenever chronic otitis externa was considered difficult to manage with medical treatment alone, without the application of predefined staging criteria. Changes in the annual frequency of ear cleaning before and after surgery were recorded, and owner assessments were conducted at or near the final follow-up visit at least 12 months postoperatively.
resultsOver a median follow-up period of 952 days (interquartile range 589.5 to 1617), no case progressed to end-stage ear canal disease or required conversion to total ear canal ablation with lateral bulla osteotomy. No serious postoperative complications were observed. The median annual ear-cleaning frequency decreased markedly from 6.74 (interquartile range 2.06 to 14.30) before surgery to 1.58 (interquartile range 0.42 to 3.77) after surgery. The median postoperative pruritus score improved from 100% preoperatively to 20% (interquartile range 10 to 35). Owner assessment scores exceeded a mean of 3.89 across all items. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Lateral ear canal resection performed in routine clinical practice before the development of overt end-stage ear canal disease may suppress progression of chronic otitis externa and support long-term disease manageability. The findings of this study suggest that lateral ear canal resection can be performed in a primary care setting without specialist qualifications or specialised equipment, and may contribute to avoiding progression to total ear canal ablation with lateral bulla osteotomy in similar clinical contexts. In contemporary otitis management, lateral ear canal resection warrants re-evaluation not only as a salvage procedure but as a treatment option to be considered earlier in the disease course.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.