Radiographic Evaluation of Feeding Tube Placement in Dogs and Cats

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Radiographic evaluation of feeding tube placement hinges on differentiating esophageal from tracheal lumens, particularly for nasogastric and nasoesophageal tubes. Key diagnostic criteria include incomplete superposition of the tube on the tracheal lumen, dorsal position relative to the carina, and dorsal position relative to the larynx on lateral radiographs.
• Nasogastric tube tips must be confirmed within the gastric lumen, caudal to the inferred gastroesophageal junction (typically visualized at the level of the diaphragmatic hiatus). Nasoesophageal tubes are acceptable when terminating in the distal esophagus, cranial to this junction.
• Esophagostomy tube tips can be located in the distal esophagus or proximal stomach; however, midesophageal placement is associated with reduced esophageal injury compared to tubes advanced through the cardioesophageal junction. Radiographs should confirm intraluminal passage from the cervical exit site without acute angulation.
• Gastrostomy tube placement requires verification of the retention device within the gastric lumen and apposition of the gastric wall to the abdominal wall on lateral radiographs. Peritoneal displacement of the retention device or gastric wall separation necessitates immediate correction.
• Tracheal placement is the most critical malposition, potentially leading to pneumonia or fatal airway compromise. Radiographic signs include ventral positioning within the tracheal lumen and potential visualization within a mainstem bronchus.
• Contrast radiography is indicated for suspected esophageal or gastric perforation, when tube tip location is ambiguous on plain radiographs, or to confirm intraluminal placement of jejunostomy tubes. Water-soluble iodinated contrast is preferred over barium in cases of suspected perforation.

Enteral nutrition support in small animal patients relies on a range of tube types, each with distinct anatomic targets and distinct radiographic failure modes. This article provides a diagnostic framework for the radiographic assessment of nasogastric, nasoesophageal, esophagostomy, and gastrostomy tube placement in dogs and cats. It is written for practicing veterinarians who interpret radiographs in emergency, critical care, and general practice settings, and who must distinguish correct placement from malposition with confidence and speed.

The clinical question this reference answers is direct: when a radiograph is obtained after feeding tube placement, what specific anatomic landmarks confirm the tube is where it should be, and what findings indicate repositioning or removal is required? The answer differs by tube type, by patient conformation, and by the radiographic view obtained. The sections that follow establish the interpretive principles, then apply them to each tube category, and finally address the complications and pitfalls that most commonly lead to interpretive error.

At a Glance

Principles of Radiographic Tube Identification

The radiographic distinction between esophageal and tracheal tube placement is the most consequential interpretive decision in enteral access radiology. Inadvertent tracheal placement of a nasoesophageal or nasogastric tube can cause pneumonia, pneumothorax, or fatal airway compromise, and the radiographic signs of correct placement are not always intuitive. A 2026 study introducing and validating radiographic guidelines for tube position identification in dogs and cats found that six interpreters with varying experience correctly identified tube positioning in 82.1% of cases before receiving structured guidelines, and in 95.8% after their application. The guidelines that produced this improvement were three specific observations: incomplete superposition of the tube on the tracheal lumen, dorsal tube position relative to the carina, and dorsal position relative to the larynx when the larynx was included in the image.

These criteria exploit a consistent anatomic relationship. The esophagus lies dorsal to the trachea throughout the cervical region and remains dorsal to the carina as it passes through the thoracic inlet and into the mediastinum. A tube within the esophagus therefore projects dorsal to, or partially overlapping, the tracheal air column on a true lateral radiograph. A tube within the trachea projects ventral to the esophageal line and follows the tracheal lumen into the carina. The superposition criterion requires careful attention: a tube in the esophagus may overlap the tracheal silhouette on some projections, particularly in the cranial cervical region where the two structures lie close together. The dorsal position relative to the carina is the more reliable discriminator in the thorax, where the esophagus and trachea diverge.

Patient positioning influences these observations. A slightly oblique lateral projection can create apparent superposition of an esophageal tube over the tracheal lumen, mimicking tracheal placement. Conversely, rotation can displace a tracheal tube relative to the esophageal line. When the initial lateral view is equivocal, a second lateral view with strict positioning, or a ventrodorsal view, often resolves the ambiguity. On the ventrodorsal projection, the esophagus lies to the left of midline in the cranial thorax, while the trachea remains midline until the carina.

Anatomic Landmarks for Each Tube Type

Nasogastric and Nasoesophageal Tubes

The tip of a nasogastric tube must lie within the gastric lumen, caudal to the gastroesophageal junction. The gastroesophageal junction is not directly visible on a survey radiograph, but its position can be inferred from the esophageal hiatus in the diaphragm, which projects at the level of the thirteenth thoracic vertebra in most dogs and at the level of the tenth or eleventh thoracic vertebra in most cats. The tube tip should be visible well caudal to the diaphragmatic silhouette, within the gas-filled gastric fundus or body. A tip that terminates cranial to the diaphragm is esophageal, and if the tube is intended for gastric feeding, it must be advanced.

Nasoesophageal tubes terminate in the distal esophagus, cranial to the gastroesophageal junction. The distinction between nasoesophageal and nasogastric placement is therefore a matter of tip location relative to the diaphragm. The same tracheal-versus-esophageal criteria apply to both tube types, and the same malposition risks exist. The 2026 guideline study included both nasoesophageal and nasogastric tubes in its validation cohort, and the interpretive criteria applied equally to both.

Esophagostomy Tubes

Esophagostomy tubes enter through the cervical esophagus and are directed distally toward the stomach. The tube shaft should be visible within the esophageal lumen on the lateral cervical projection, following the dorsal esophageal line. The tip may terminate in the distal esophagus or pass through the gastroesophageal junction into the stomach. A 1977 prospective study in dogs compared the esophageal effects of tubes placed through the cardioesophageal junction into the stomach with tubes placed with the distal end in the midesophagus. The study found that midesophageal placement of silicone rubber tubes greatly reduced esophageal injury compared with tubes crossing into the stomach. This finding informs both placement technique and radiographic assessment: a tube tip that has curled cranially, or that lies in the proximal esophagus, should be repositioned, and a tube that crosses the gastroesophageal junction may warrant consideration of the esophageal injury risk documented in this early work.

The esophagostomy tube has a characteriztic external exit site in the midcervical region, and the tube should pass from the skin surface dorsally into the esophagus without acute angulation. A tube that courses ventrally or cranially from the exit site before entering the esophagus may be within the peri-esophageal soft tissues instead of the lumen. Contrast administration through the tube can confirm intraluminal placement if the survey radiograph is ambiguous.

Gastrostomy Tubes

Gastrostomy tubes, whether placed percutaneously, endoscopically, or surgically, must have their retention device within the gastric lumen and the gastric wall apposed to the body wall. The lateral abdominal radiograph should show the retention device or balloon within the gastric silhouette, with the stomach wall in contact with the abdominal wall at the tube exit site. A tube whose retention device lies free in the peritoneal cavity, or whose stomach has separated from the body wall, requires immediate correction. The radiographic assessment of gastrostomy tubes is primarily an assessment of gastric-to-body-wall apposition, which is best evaluated on the lateral projection with the patient in right or left lateral recumbency.

Radiographic Technique and Views

A single lateral view of the cervical and thoracic regions is the minimum study for nasoesophageal, nasogastric, and esophagostomy tubes. The image must include the nasopharynx cranially and the diaphragm caudally to allow assessment of the entire tube course. For gastrostomy tubes, a lateral abdominal view that includes the entire stomach and the body wall at the tube exit site is required. The American College of Veterinary Radiology publishes professional standards for diagnostic imaging practice, including recommendations for radiographic technique and quality assurance, and practitioners should ensure their imaging systems meet these standards. The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance on radiographic interpretation and normal anatomic variants that may affect tube assessment.

Malposition Patterns and Their Recognition

Tracheal Placement

Tracheal placement is the most dangerous malposition and the one the validated guidelines were designed to detect. The tube follows the tracheal lumen on the lateral projection, lying ventral to the esophageal line, and may enter a mainstem bronchus. The tube tip may be visible within the bronchial tree, and the tube may be seen to branch with the airways. Clinical signs of tracheal placement include coughing, gagging, and respiratory distress, but these signs may be absent in obtunded or anesthetized patients, making radiography the primary detection method.

Esophageal Perforation

A tube that has perforated the esophageal wall may lie in the peri-esophageal soft tissues of the neck or the mediastinum. The tube course will deviate from the expected esophageal line, and the tip may be seen outside the esophageal silhouette. Contrast radiography with water-soluble iodinated contrast can confirm extraluminal placement if the survey radiograph is equivocal. Pneumomediastinum or subcutaneous emphysema may accompany perforation and should be actively sought on the survey study.

Gastric Malposition

Gastrostomy tubes can migrate, and a tube that was correctly placed may later be found with its retention device in the pyloric region, the duodenum, or the peritoneal cavity. Serial radiographs in patients with chronic gastrostomy tubes should be compared with the post-placement study to detect gradual migration. The American Veterinary Medical Association practice resources provide guidance on standards of care for monitoring indwelling devices, and serial imaging is consistent with those standards.

Radiographic Confirmation Protocol

The confirmation sequence begins with a systematic review of the lateral projection before any ventrodorsal image is obtained. For nasogastric and nasoesophageal tubes, the interpreter should first identify the tube tip, then trace the tube proximally to confirm it enters the esophagus instead of the trachea. The validated guidelines from a 2026 multi-institution study offer three specific criteria for correct placement: incomplete superposition of the tube on the tracheal lumen, dorsal tube position relative to the carina, and dorsal position relative to the larynx when the larynx is included in the image. In that study, interpreter accuracy improved from 82.1% to 95.8% after application of these criteria, with benefit seen across all experience levels from radiology interns to board-certified radiologists. The radiographic guidelines for nasoesophageal and nasogastric tube position therefore represent the current standard for structured interpretation.

The carina is the most reliable thoracic landmark. A correctly positioned nasogastric tube passes dorsal to the tracheal lumen at the carina because the esophagus lies dorsal to the trachea at that level. A tube that remains superimposed on the tracheal silhouette at the carina should be considered tracheal until proven otherwise. The larynx provides a second landmark when included: the esophagus lies dorsal to the larynx, so a tube dorsal to the laryngeal silhouette is esophageal, whereas a tube within the laryngeal lumen is tracheal.

For esophagostomy tubes, the cervical entry site and the tube tip position both require assessment. The tube should course caudally within the esophageal lumen, and the tip should sit in the distal esophagus or proximal stomach depending on the intended placement. The 1977 experimental study in dogs demonstrated that midesophageal placement of silicone rubber tubes reduced esophageal injury compared with tubes advanced through the cardioesophageal junction, and that study also documented that cervical esophagostomy tube position can be verified endoscopically and radiographically. When the tip is intentionally placed in the midesophagus, the radiograph must confirm the tip does not abut the esophageal wall at an angle that could promote erosion.

Gastrostomy tubes require confirmation that the gastric port and retention device lie within the gastric lumen and that the tube does not exit through the pylorus into the duodenum. The stomach should be assessed for excessive distention, which may indicate that the tube has migrated or that gastric outflow is obstructed.

Decision Tree for Tube Malposition

The following decision sequence applies when a tube tip is not in the expected location.

1. Identify the tube tip and trace the entire visible course. If the tube is not visible in its entirety, obtain an additional radiograph that includes the missing segment before making any judgment.
2. Determine whether the tube enters the airway. If the tube is superimposed on the tracheal lumen at the carina, or if the tip lies within a bronchus, the tube is tracheal or bronchial. Remove it immediately. Do not flush the tube.
3. If the tube is esophageal but the tip is too proximal, measure the distance from the tip to the gastroesophageal junction. A nasogastric tube tip should reach the stomach. A tip ending in the midesophagus may be acceptable for esophagostomy tubes but is inadequate for nasogastric feeding.
4. If the tube tip is not visible within the thorax or abdomen, consider coiling within the pharynx or oral cavity, or retrograde passage into the nasal cavity. The lateral radiograph should include the pharynx to exclude this pattern.
5. If the tube appears to exit the esophageal lumen, assess for perforation. Free gas in the cervical soft tissues or mediastinum, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax support the diagnosis. Contrast administration through the tube may confirm an extraluminal course.
6. For gastrostomy tubes, confirm the retention device is within the gastric lumen and the stomach is not displaced from the body wall. A tube that has been pulled out of the stomach will show the retention device outside the gastric silhouette, often within the subcutaneous tissues.

Monitoring Parameters and Repeat Imaging

The timing of repeat imaging depends on the tube type and the patient's status. Nasogastric tubes should be radiographically confirmed immediately after placement and again after any manipulation, including advancement or withdrawal. A tube that has been in place for several days should be rechecked if the patient develops coughing, gagging, or respiratory distress, because tube migration into the trachea has been reported even after initial correct placement.

Esophagostomy tubes require less frequent repeat imaging, but the exit site should be inspected daily and the tube position rechecked if the patient shows signs of dysphagia, regurgitation, or cervical swelling. The 1977 canine study noted that tube material and tip position influenced esophageal injury, with silicone rubber tubes causing less esophagitis than polyethylene tubes when placed in the midesophagus. This supports the practice of documenting tip position at placement and again if the tube is advanced or withdrawn.

Gastrostomy tubes should be imaged after placement and again before the first tube change. The stomach should be evaluated for proper apposition to the body wall, and the tube should be checked for kinking at the skin surface. Patients receiving jejunostomy feeding require contrast studies to document tube direction and location, as described in the laparoscopic-assisted jejunostomy tube evaluation study, which used radiographic contrast to confirm correct tube direction and to exclude stricture or altered motility.

Documentation Standards

The radiographic report should state the tube type, the tip location relative to named anatomic landmarks, and the course of the tube. For nasogastric tubes, the report should specify whether the tip is within the stomach and whether the tube passes dorsal to the carina. For esophagostomy tubes, the report should identify the cervical entry site and the tip position relative to the gastroesophageal junction. For gastrostomy tubes, the report should confirm the retention device is within the gastric lumen and note any gastric distention.

The report should also record the radiographic technique used, including the views obtained and any contrast medium administered. If a tube is malpositioned and removed, the report should document the finding and the action taken. This documentation supports medicolegal review and provides a baseline for comparison if repeat imaging is required. Professional standards for imaging practice and reporting are maintained through the American College of Veterinary Radiology resources, which outline expectations for image quality and interpretation.

Species and Equipment Considerations

The radiographic landmarks described apply to both dogs and cats, but the smaller thoracic dimensions in cats make the carina more difficult to identify on low-quality images. A cat with a nasogastric tube should be imaged with a technique that provides adequate thoracic detail, and the interpreter should be cautious when the carina is not clearly visible. In cats, the tracheal lumen is narrow, and a tube that appears to lie within the tracheal silhouette may actually be esophageal if the image is slightly oblique.

The availability of digital radiography affects the practical approach. Digital systems allow windowing and magnification, which can help identify the tube tip and its relationship to the carina. When digital radiography is unavailable, a second orthogonal view should be obtained to confirm tube position, because the lateral view alone may be ambiguous in patients with pleural effusion or pulmonary pathology.

Patient status changes the imaging approach. A dyspneic patient should not be placed in dorsal recumbency for a ventrodorsal view if the lateral view already confirms correct placement. In these patients, the lateral view alone may be sufficient, provided the carina and larynx are visible. Conversely, an obese patient may require a higher technique to penetrate the thoracic soft tissues, and the tube may be more difficult to identify if it is radiolucent. Most commercially available feeding tubes are radiopaque, but some silicone tubes are only partially radiopaque, and the tip may be difficult to identify. In these cases, a small volume of contrast medium can be administered through the tube to confirm the tip location, as described in the jejunostomy evaluation protocol.

Recognized Complications and Early Detection

Feeding tube complications are often silent until they produce radiographic signs, so the first imaging study after placement serves as both confirmation and baseline. For nasogastric and nasoesophageal tubes, tracheal placement is the most immediately life-threatening failure. The radiographic guidelines validated by Vila Cabaleiro and colleagues offer three specific criteria: incomplete superposition of the tube on the tracheal lumen, dorsal tube position relative to the carina, and dorsal position relative to the larynx when the larynx is included in the field. These criteria improved correct identification from 82.1% to 95.8% across interpreters of varying experience, which makes them a practical checklist for every post-placement radiograph.

Esophagitis and stricture formation represent delayed complications of esophagostomy tubes. An early experimental study in dogs demonstrated that polyethylene tubes positioned through the cardioesophageal junction into the stomach produced substantially more esophageal injury than silicone rubber tubes ending in the midesophagus. The clinical implication is that the distal tip position should be recorded at placement and rechecked if the patient develops regurgitation, dysphagia, or unexplained fever. Contrast fluoroscopy can document altered motility or stricture when clinical signs suggest esophageal disease.

Gastrostomy tube complications include intraperitoneal leakage, tube dislodgement with tract disruption, and inadvertent placement of the tube tip into the pyloric antrum or duodenum. Early detection relies on repeat radiographs when the patient shows abdominal pain, vomiting, or signs of peritonitis. Contrast studies through the tube can confirm that contrast remains within the gastric lumen and that the tube has not migrated.

Common Interpretive Errors and Corrective Action

Less experienced clinicians most often misread tube position because they rely on a single radiographic feature instead of the combination of criteria. A tube that overlies the tracheal silhouette on a lateral view may still be esophageal if it courses dorsally at the carina. Conversely, a tube that appears to follow the esophagus can be tracheal if it remains ventral and superimposed on the tracheal lumen throughout its course. The corrective action is to apply all three validated criteria systematically instead of judging from gestalt.

A second common error is interpreting a single lateral view without considering the ventrodorsal projection. A tube that loops or kinks may appear correctly positioned on one view but malpositioned on the orthogonal view. When the tube tip cannot be confidently localized, a second view is mandatory before feeding begins.

A third error involves mistaking the gastric bubble or the pylorus for the tube tip on a poorly positioned radiograph. The tube tip should be identified as the most distal radiopaque point of the tube itself, not inferred from surrounding structures. If the tube is not clearly visible throughout its length, the radiograph should be repeated with a higher technique or a slightly oblique projection.

Limitations of the Current Evidence

The validated radiographic guidelines for nasoesophageal and nasogastric tubes were derived from a single study using lateral cervical and thoracic radiographs. The study did not assess ventrodorsal views, and the guidelines have not been independently replicated. Interpreters in the study included trainees and general practitioners, which supports generalizability, but the true tube position was determined by two board-certified radiologists using clinical history, leaving some potential for circular reasoning.

Evidence for esophagostomy tube complications comes largely from older experimental work. The finding that silicone rubber tubes cause less injury than polyethylene tubes has not been re-examined with modern tube materials, and the optimal tip position remains a matter of clinical judgment instead of a firmly established standard. Similarly, data on jejunostomy tube complications derive from small prospective studies, and the long-term outcomes beyond 30 days are not well characterized.

Expert opinion still differs on whether routine contrast administration through the tube is warranted at placement or only when malposition is suspected. Plain radiographs identify most malpositions, but contrast is required to confirm intraluminal placement when the tube tip is adjacent to the gastric wall or when perforation is suspected.

Referral, Consultation, and Reporting

Immediate referral to a specialist surgeon or interventional radiologist is warranted when a tube has perforated the esophagus or stomach, when intraperitoneal contrast leakage is identified, or when a tube cannot be safely repositioned after malposition is confirmed. Patients with suspected esophageal stricture should be referred for endoscopic evaluation and possible balloon dilation.

Consultation with a veterinary radiologist is appropriate when the tube position remains ambiguous after orthogonal views and application of the published criteria. Radiologist review is also valuable when concurrent thoracic disease, such as pleural effusion or a hiatal hernia, complicates interpretation of the tube course.

Laboratory involvement is indicated when complications such as aspiration pneumonia or peritonitis are suspected on the basis of radiographic findings. Thoracocentesis or abdominocentesis with fluid analysis and culture should be performed before antimicrobial therapy is initiated. Regulatory reporting is not typically required for feeding tube complications, but clinicians should follow the professional practice standards published by bodies such as the American Veterinary Medical Association practice resources and the American College of Veterinary Radiology regarding documentation and radiation safety.

Troubleshooting Table

Frequently Asked Questions

How should I confirm tube position when only a single lateral view is available?

A single lateral view is often sufficient for nasogastric or nasoesophageal tubes when the guidelines are applied systematically. Look for incomplete superposition of the tube on the tracheal lumen and a dorsal position relative to the carina. These two criteria, validated in dogs and cats, markedly improve interpreter accuracy even among less experienced readers. If the tube appears superimposed on the tracheal lumen or ventral to the carina, assume tracheal placement until proven otherwise. When the larynx is included in the field, assess the tube's position relative to it as an additional check. If any doubt remains, obtain a ventrodorsal view or repeat the study after slight tube manipulation.

What should I do when the tube tip is not visible on the radiograph?

Do not infer tip location from the visible portion of the tube. The radiopaque marker or tip may sit beyond the edge of the image, overlie the cardiac silhouette, or be obscured by patient motion. Repeat the radiograph with a larger field of view centerd on the expected tip location based on the measured tube length. For gastrostomy tubes, include the entire stomach and body wall. If the tip remains invisible, consider a small volume of water-soluble contrast injected through the tube under fluoroscopy or a repeat radiograph immediately after injection. Document that tip position was not confirmed if imaging remains inadequate, and do not initiate feeding until confirmation is achieved.

How do I assess tube position in a brachycephalic patient where landmarks are distorted?

Brachycephalic dogs and cats have a relatively short cervical trachea and a more cranial thoracic inlet, which compresses the expected distances between larynx, carina, and diaphragm. The dorsal position relative to the carina remains the most reliable criterion, as it does not depend on absolute measurements. The laryngeal landmark may be less useful because the tube often passes through a short, curved pharynx. Compare the tube course with the visible tracheal lumen on the same radiograph instead of relying on expected vertebral levels. If the tube follows the tracheal lumen for more than one or two vertebral bodies, suspect tracheal placement even if the tip appears dorsal at the carina.

What are the minimum radiographic standards before starting enteral feeding?

Obtain a lateral radiograph that includes the entire tube from its external fixation point to its tip. The image must be collimated to include the pharynx, cervical esophagus, thoracic inlet, and stomach as appropriate for the tube type. For gastrostomy tubes, include the body wall and stomach in two orthogonal views where feasible. Confirm the tube does not loop, kink, or terminate in a bronchus. For esophagostomy tubes, verify the tip does not cross the gastroesophageal junction unless midesophageal placement is intended. Record the findings in the medical record with the date, time, and interpreter identity. Repeat imaging is indicated after any tube manipulation, repositioning, or unexplained patient deterioration.

How should I communicate a malpositioned tube to the owner or referring veterinarian?

State the finding directly and describe the risk in concrete terms. For tracheal placement, explain that formula delivered into the airway can cause pneumonia or acute respiratory distress. For gastric malposition, describe the risk of peritonitis if intraperitoneal delivery occurs. Indicate what corrective action is planned, such as tube removal, replacement, or surgical revision. Provide a timeline for repeat imaging and when feeding may resume. Avoid speculative language about cause unless the radiograph shows an obvious technical error. Document the conversation in the medical record, including the owner's questions and consent for the corrective procedure. If the case is referred, send the radiographs and a written summary of the findings and actions taken.

When is contrast radiography or fluoroscopy necessary instead of plain radiography?

Plain radiography confirms most tube placements, but contrast studies are indicated when the tube tip is not clearly visible, when perforation is suspected, or when the tube has been manipulated after initial placement. Water-soluble iodinated contrast, not barium, should be used if perforation is possible. Fluoroscopy is valuable for real-time confirmation during repositioning and for documenting contrast flow into the stomach or jejunum. In jejunostomy tubes, contrast studies can confirm tube direction and exclude kinking, as described in prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted placement in dogs. If fluoroscopy is unavailable, a contrast radiograph followed by a delayed image can demonstrate passage of contrast into the small intestine.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• MRI Monitoring of Brain Tumor Response to Therapy in Dogs
• Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Abscesses in Small Animals
• Radiographic Monitoring of Total Hip Replacement in Dogs

References and Further Reading

• Cervical esophagostomy in dogs: endoscopic, radiographic, and histopathologic evaluation of esophagitis induced by feeding tubes.. 1977.
• Introduction and Validation of Radiographic Guidelines for Identification of Nasoesophageal and Nasogastric Tube Position in Dogs and Cats.. 2026.
• Evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted placement of jejunostomy feeding tubes in dogs.. 2004.
• Successful treatment of encrusted cystitis associated with Staphylococcus pseudintermedius infection in the urinary bladder of a dog.. 2013.
• American College of Veterinary Radiology Resources. American College of Veterinary Radiology.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.
• American Veterinary Medical Association Practice Resources. American Veterinary Medical Association.
• WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code. WOAH.

Related Articles

• Radiographic Evaluation of Chemotherapy Port Placement in Dogs
• Radiographic Assessment of Fracture Healing in Dogs and Cats
• Radiographic and Ultrasonographic Diagnosis of Urolithiasis in Dogs and Cats
• Radiographic Assessment of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement in Cats
• Radiographic Assessment of Orthopedic External Fixator in Dogs

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.