Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(06): 453-459
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-10-0149
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Morphology of distal border synovial invaginations of the equine distal sesamoid bone

Comparison between computed tomography and a hoof-specific radiographic projection
S. Claerhoudt
1   Veterinary Medical Imaging and Small Animal Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
H. J. Bergman
2   Lingehoeve Diergeneeskunde/VetCT, AK Lienden, Netherlands
,
H. van der Veen
2   Lingehoeve Diergeneeskunde/VetCT, AK Lienden, Netherlands
,
L. Duchateau
3   Department of Physiology and Biometry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
E. V. Raes
1   Veterinary Medical Imaging and Small Animal Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
K. Vanderperren
1   Veterinary Medical Imaging and Small Animal Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
,
J. H. Saunders
1   Veterinary Medical Imaging and Small Animal Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium
› Author Affiliations This study was financed by the “Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds”, Ghent University.
Further Information

Publication History

Received 21 October 2011

Accepted 12 June 2012

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To compare the difference and agreement of the morphology of distal border synovial invaginations on a dorsoproximal-palmarodistal oblique (DPr-PaDiO) projection with hoof-specific angle versus computed tomography.

Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images and a DPr-PaDiO radiographic projection with hoof-specific angle were obtained on 50 cadaveric forefeet from 25 Warmblood horses. Computed tomography was assumed to be the gold standard. The number, shape and depth of penetration of distal border synovial invaginations into the distal sesamoid bone were evaluated with both methods, and the comparison of their measurements was statistically described.

Results: Significantly more invaginations were seen on CT compared to radiography, with an observed average difference of 1.2. In none of the cases did radiography have a higher number than that observed with CT. No statistically significant difference for depth between CT and the DPr-PaDiO projection was seen, however, there was quite a large variation of the actual difference of measurements against their mean found. Radiography was underestimated when high mean values applied. The agreement between both modalities for shape was moderate to good. A very high specificity of the specific DPr-PaDiO projection for shape was found (97%).

Clinical significance: The radiographic projection with hoof-specific angle differs significantly from CT concerning the number and depth of the distal border synovial invaginations. Therefore, this specific view may not be considered useful in the evaluation of these invaginations.

Keywords

Distal sesamoid bone - warmblood horse - synovial invagination - radiography - computed tomography
 

  • References

  • 1 Colles CM, Hickman J. The arterial supply of the navicular bone and its variations in navicular disease. Equine Vet J 1977; 9: 150-154.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rose RJ, Taylor BJ, Steel JD. Navicular disease in the horse: an analysis of seventy cases and assessment of a special radiographic view. J Eq Med Surg 1978; 2: 492-497.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Colles CM. Interpreting radiographs 1: The foot. Equine Vet J 1983; 15: 297-303.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 MacGregor CM. Radiographic assessment of navicular bones, based on changes in the distal nutrient foramina. Equine Vet J 1986; 18: 203-206.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pool RR, Meagher DM, Stover SM. Pathophysiology of navicular syndrome. Vet Clinics of North Am-equine Pract 1989; 5: 109-129.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kaser-Hotz B, Ueltschi G. Radiographic appearance of the navicular bone in sound horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992; 33: 9-17.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wright IM. A study of 118 cases of navicular disease: radiological features. Equine Vet J 1993; 25: 493-500.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Seyrek-Intas D, Tellhelm B, Reckels FJ. Interpretation and diagnostic value of some radiological findings in the navicular bone. Pferdeheilkunde 1999; 15: 406-418.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Robert C, Valette JP, Denoix JM. Correlation between routine radiographic findings and early racing career in French Trotters. Equine Vet J Suppl 2006; 36: 473-478.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dik KJ. Diagnostische beeldvorming [Diagnostic Imaging]. In: Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan MM, Barneveld A, Van Den Belt AJ. editors De Veterinaire Keuring van het Paard [The Purchase Examination of the Horse]. Leeuwarden: Libre BV; 2007. pg. 85-112.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Claerhoudt S, Bergman HJ, van der Veen H. et al. Differences in the morphology of distal border synovial invaginations of the distal sesamoid bone in the horse as evaluated with CT compared to radiography. Eq Vet J. 2012 in press.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Claerhoudt S, Bergman HJ, van der Veen H. et al. Computed tomographic morphology of the synovial invaginations of the distal sesamoid bone of the horse. Anat Histol Embryol 2011; 40: 55-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Murray RC, Blunden TS, Schramme MC. et al. How does magnetic resonance imaging represent histologic findings in the equine digit?. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006; 47: 17-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Groth AM, May SA, Weaver MP. et al. Intra- and interobserver agreement in the interpretation of navicular bones on radiographs and computed tomography scans. Equine Vet J 2009; 41: 124-129.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Widmer WR, Buckwalter KA, Fessler JF. et al. Use of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of navicular syndrome in the horse. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000; 41: 108-116.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dyson S, Murray R, Blunden T. et al. Current concepts of navicular disease. Equine Vet Educ 2006; 18: 45-56.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Altman DG. Some common problems in medical research. In: Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991. pg. 396-439.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Rijkenhuizen ABM, Németh F, Dik KJ. et al. Development of the navicular bone in foetal and young horses, including the arterial supply. Equine Vet J 1989; 21: 405-412.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar