Summary
Arthrographic and intraoperative evaluations of stifles affected with cranial cruciate disease were compared. Arthrography did not appear to be helpful in predicting cranial cruciate ligament pathology. The caudal cruciate ligament was consistently not visualized in the arthrograms and was normal at surgery. The menisci were visualized consistently in the arthrograms, but conclusions could not be made as to the benefit of arthrography in predicting meniscal pathology. Arthrography was not helpful in predicting joint capsule and femoral articular surface pathology. Survey radiographic evaluation was better than arthrography in evaluating joint pathology. When cruciate injury is suspected, after history and physical examination, survey radiographs are better than positive contrast arthrograms at supporting the diagnosis.
Positive contrast arthrography was evaluated as a diagnostic aid in canine cranial cruciate ligament disease. It did not appear to be useful in predicting joint pathology. With arthrography, both menisci could be visualized and evaluated for abnormalities. Joint effusion and presence of osteophytes evaluated on survey radiographs was better than arthrography in evaluating joint pathology.
Keywords
Cranial cruciate ligament disease - arthrography - iohexol
