Objective: The purpose of our study was (1) to determine whether four-view radiography of the pelvis is as reliable and accurate as computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing sacral and pelvic fractures, in addition to coxofemoral and sacroiliac joint subluxation or luxation, and (2) to evaluate the effect of the amount of training in reading diagnostic imaging studies on the accuracy of diagnosing sacral and pelvic fractures in dogs.
Methods: Sacral and pelvic fractures were created in 11 canine cadavers using a lateral impactor. In all cadavers, frog-legged ventrodorsal, lateral, right and left ventro-45°-medial to dorsolateral oblique frog leg (“rollover 45-degree view”) radiographs and a CT of the pelvis were obtained. Two radiologists, two surgeons and two veterinary students classified fractures using a confidence scale and noted the duration of evaluation for each imaging modality and case. The imaging results were compared to gross dissection.
Results: All evaluators required significantly more time to analyse CT images compared to radiographic images. Sacral and pelvic fractures, specifically those of the sacral body, ischiatic table, and the pubic bone, were more accurately diagnosed using CT compared to radiography. Fractures of the acetabulum and iliac body were diagnosed with similar accuracy (at least 86%) using either modality.
Clinical significance: Computed tomography is a better method for detecting canine sacral and some pelvic fractures compared to radiography. Computed tomography provided an accuracy of close to 100% in persons trained in evaluating CT images.
Keywords
Radiography -
computed tomography -
pelvis -
sacrum -
dog
References
1
Harasen G.
Pelvic fractures. Can Vet J 2007; 48: 427-428.
3
Piermattei DL,
Flo GI,
Decamp C.
Fractures of the pelvis. In: Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006: 395-420.
4
Boswell KA,
Boone Jr EG,
Boudrieau RJ.
Reduction and temporary stabilization of acetabular fractures using ASIF mandibular reduction forceps: technique and results using plate fixation in 25 dogs. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 1-10.
5
Draffan D,
Clements D,
Farrell M.
et al. The role of computed tomography in the classification and management of pelvic fractures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 190-197.
9
Henry G.
Fracture healing and complication. In
Thrall D.
editor Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Elsevier; 2013: 283-306.
10
Reis AC,
Rabelo ND,
Pereira RP.
et al. Radiological examination of the hip - clinical indications, methods, and interpretation: a clinical commentary. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014; 9: 256-267.
11
Kickuth R,
Hartung G,
Laufer U.
et al. Stereoscopic 3D CT vs standard 3D CT in the classification of acetabular fractures: an experimental study. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 422-427.
12
Kickuth R.
et al. 3D CT versus axial helical CT versus conventional tomography in the classification of acetabular fractures: a ROC analysis. Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 140-145.
14
Hayashi D,
Xu L,
Gusenburg J.
et al. Reliability of semiquantitative assessment of osteophytes and subchondral cysts on tomosynthesis images by radiologists with different levels of expertise. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014; 20: 353-359.
16
Yoon RS,
Koerner JD,
Patel NM.
et al. Impact of specialty and level of training on CT measurement of femoral version: an interobserver agreement analysis. J Orthop Traumatol 2013; 14: 277-281.
