Retrospective analysis characterizes corneal endotheliitis in Shiba Inu dogs, highlighting distinct features.
Objective To characterize the clinical features of corneal endotheliitis in Shiba Inu dogs that differ from typical “blue eye,” and to compare this condition with primary corneal endothelial degeneration. Animals Studied Sixteen Shiba Inu dogs (30 eyes) diagnosed with corneal endotheliitis. Procedures Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical findings, vaccination history, treatment, and outcomes were evaluated. Ophthalmic examinations included slit‐lamp biomicroscopy, specular microscopy, and optical coherence tomography. Results The mean age of affected dogs was 5.9 ± 3.7 years, which was significantly younger than that of dogs with primary corneal endothelial degeneration. No clear temporal relationship was observed between vaccination and disease onset. The affected eyes exhibited conjunctival hyperemia, characteristic geographic corneal endothelial opacities, and localized corneal edema. Corneal endothelial cell density was significantly lower than that in clinically normal eyes but significantly higher than that in Shiba Inu dogs with primary corneal endothelial degeneration. Optical coherence tomography revealed hyper‐reflective areas on the endothelial surface of the cornea. Topical steroidal anti‐inflammatory therapy achieved rapid resolution of inflammatory signs and improvement of corneal edema in all cases; however, recurrence occurred in some eyes during tapering. Endothelial opacities persisted after resolution of inflammation, and gradual endothelial cell loss was observed in some eyes during long‐term follow‐up. Conclusions Corneal endotheliitis in Shiba Inu dogs is characterized by geographic endothelial opacity, localized corneal edema, and favorable response to anti‐inflammatory therapy. The clinical features, younger age of onset, and milder corneal endothelial damage suggest that this condition may differ from primary corneal endothelial degeneration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: