Ultrasound-guided approach to the cervical articular process joints in horses: a validation of the technique in cadavers

Summary

Objectives: To compare accuracy of the ultrasound-guided craniodorsal (CrD) approach with the dorsal (D) approach to the cervical articular process joints, and to evaluate the effect of the transducer, needle gauge, and operator experience.

Methods: Cervical articular process joints from 14 cadaveric neck specimens were injected using either a D or CrD approach, a linear (13 MHx) or microconvex transducer (10 MHz), and an 18 or 20 gauge needle, by an experienced or inexperienced operator. Injectate consisted of an iodinated contrast material solution. Time taken for injection, number of redirects, and retrieval of synovial fluid were recorded. Accuracy was assessed using a scoring system for contrast seen on computed tomography (CT).

Results: The successful performance of intraarticular injections of contrast detected by CT using the D (61/68) and CrD (57/64) approaches was comparable. No significant effect of approach, transducer or needle gauge was observed on injection accuracy, time taken to perform injection, or number of redirects. The 18 gauge needle had a positive correlation with retrieval of synovial fluid. A positive learning curve was observed for the inexperienced operator.

Clinical relevance: Both approaches to the cervical articular process joints were highly accurate. Ultrasound-guided injection of the cervical articular process joints is an easilylearnt technique for an inexperienced veterinarian. Either approach may be employed in the field with a high level of accuracy, using widely available equipment.

Keywords

Horse - ultrasound-guided - cervical articular process joint - equine

• References

• 1 Birmingham S, Reed S, Mattoon J. et al. Qualitative assessment of corticosteroid cervical articular facet injection in symptomatic horses. Equine Vet Educ 2010; 22: 77-82.
• 2 Nielsen J, Berg LC, Thoefner M. et al. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of cervical facet joints in horses: a cadaveric study. Equine vet J 2003; 35: 657-661.
• 3 Grisel G, Grant B, Rantanen N. Arthrocentesis of the equine cervical facets. Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 1996; 42: 197-198.
• 4 Mattoon JS, Drost WT, Grguric MR. et al. Technique for equine cervical articular process joint injection. Veterinary Radiol Ultrasound 2004; 45: 238-240.
• 5 Chope K. How to perform sonographic examination and ultrasound-guided injection of the cervical vertebral facet joints in horses. Proc Am Assoc Equine Pract 2008; 54: 186-189.
• 6 Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ. et al. Lack of effect of intraarticular corticosteroids for chronic pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1047-1050.
• 7 Claridge HAH, Piercy RJ, Parry A. et al. The 3D anatomy of the cervical articular process joints in the horse and their topographical relationship to the spinal cord. Equine Vet J 2010; 42: 726-731.
• 8 Nout YS, Reed SM. Cervical vertebral stenotic myelopathy. Equine Vet Educ 2003; 15: 212-223.
• 9 Levine JM, Scrivani PV, Divers TH. et al. Multicenter case-control study of signalment, diagnostic features, and outcomes associated with cervical vertebral malformation-malarticulation in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 237: 812-822.
• 10 Knych HK, Vidal MA, Casbeer HC. et al. Pharmacokinetics of triamcinolone acetonide following intramuscular and intra-articular administration to exercised Thoroughbred horses. Equine Vet J 2013; 45: 715-720.
• 11 Marks D. Cervical nerve root compression in a horse, treated by epidural injection of corticosteroids. J Equine Vet Sci 1999; 19: 399
• 12 Berg LC, Nielsen J, Thoefner M. et al. Ultrasonography of the equine cervical region: a descriptive study in eight horses. Equine Vet J 2003; 35: 647-655.
• 13 Pepe M, Angelone M, Gialletti R. et al. Arthroscopic anatomy of the equine cervical articular process joint. Equine Vet J 2014; 46: 345-351.