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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
