Bierau, J

Burk, J

Büttner, K

Cruz, A

Koch, C

Manso-Diaz, G

Röcken, M

Staszyk, C

English

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)

source: https://doi.org/10.48350/174510 | downloaded: 12.11.2022Visualization of anatomical structures in the fetlock region of the horse using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in comparison with conventional multidetector computed tomography (MDCT)FB 10 | VeterinärmedizinAG Prof. Dr. Carsten StaszykBackgroundMaterials & MethodsResultsConclusion Acknowledgments & ReferencesJ. Bierau1, A. Cruz1, C. Koch2, G. Manso-Diaz3, J. Burk1, K. Büttner4, C. Staszyk5, M. Röcken11 Equine Clinic (Surgery, Orthopedics), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany 2 Swiss Institute of Equine Medicine (ISME), Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Switzerland3 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain4 Unit for Biomathematics and Data Processing, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany5 Institute of Veterinary-Anatomy, -Histology and -Embryology Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Justus-Liebig- University Giessen, GermanySpecimensTwenty-nine limbs from nine horses euthanized for reasons unrelated to this studyCBCT and MDCT scansA native and post contrast scan was performed in the area of the fetlock joint inthe CBCT and in the MDCTImage Evaluation / Scoring system • 0: structure was not visible• 1: structure was poorly visualized, but detectable, and was identified by itslocation and signal intensity/density, but not by margins, shape or size• 2: structure was clearly identified by its location, shape and signalintensity/density, but the margins were not clearly delineated• 3: structure was well visualized and clearly delineated by location, shape, signalintensity/density, size and marginsbony structuresno differences between CBCT and MDCT were detected  in terms of the described scoring criteria (mean score 3)cartilageno differences between CBCT and MDCT were detected  in terms of the described scoring criteria (nativ: mean score 0; post contrast: score= 2-3 )soft tissueA weak to moderate correlation of soft tissue of MDCT and CBCT was noted. MDCT was always able to obtain a better representation of soft tissue (CBCT mean=0.58 vs. MDCT mean= 1.72)ligamentsVisualization of ligaments could be detected very poorly in both modalities (score=0-1)CBCT can be used in case of an indication for imaging of bony structures and cartilage after contrast injection. Another advantage is mobility of the device, giving the possibility to use it in different rooms and allowing a very high flexible adjustment to examined horse.(a: MDCT; d: CBCT): soft tissue window(b: MDCT; e: CBCT): arthrography fetlock joint(c: MDCT; f: CBCT): field of viewMDCT• narrow, fan-shaped X-ray beam• slice by slice along the patient's z-axisCBCT• cone-shaped X-ray beam and a large flat panel detector• multiple projections from a single rotation around the region of interest1. Stewart, Holly L., et al. "Use of cone‐beam computed tomography for advanced imaging of the equine patient." Equine veterinary journal 53.5 (2021): 872-885.2. Vallance, S. A., et al. "Comparisons of computed tomography, contrast enhanced computed tomography and standing low‐field magnetic resonance imaging in horses with lameness localised to the foot. Part 1: anatomic visualisation scores." Equine Veterinary Journal 44.1 (2012): 51-56.

Visualization of anatomical structures in the fetlock region of the horse using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in comparison with conventional multidetector computed tomography (MDCT)

https://boris.unibe.ch/174510/1/PosterECVSJOB16.05.20221.pdf

Visualization of anatomical structures in the fetlock region of the horse using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in comparison with conventional multidetector computed tomography (MDCT)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)