Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Veterinary Imaging
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1431777
This article is part of the Research Topic The Integration of Clinical Veterinary Anatomy and Diagnostic Imaging View all 7 articles

Visualization of anatomical structures in the carpal region of the horse using cone beam computed tomography in comparison with conventional multidetector computed tomography

Provisionally accepted
Marie Hagenbach Marie Hagenbach 1*Jonathan Bierau Jonathan Bierau 1Antonio M. Cruz Antonio M. Cruz 1Christoph Koch Christoph Koch 2Gabriel Manso-Díaz Gabriel Manso-Díaz 3Kathrin Büttner Kathrin Büttner 4Carsten Staszyk Carsten Staszyk 5Michael Röcken Michael Röcken 1
  • 1 Clinic for Equine Surgery, Orthopedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • 2 Swiss Institute of Equine Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • 3 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • 4 Unit of Biomathematics and Data Processing, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • 5 Institute for Veterinary Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Introduction: In the diagnostics of orthopedic diseases in the horse, diagnostic imaging often plays a decisive role. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging is used in both human and small animal medicine and becoming increasingly popular. To see whether CBCT imaging can be useful in the diagnosis of orthopedic diseases of the carpal region of the horse and to explore possible limitations we compared CBCT images with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) images of the carpal region of equine cadaveric specimens. Materials and methods: Twenty-eight forelimbs from fifteen horses, slaughtered for reasons unrelated to this study, were examined. Native and contrast enhanced CBCT and MDCT scans were performed. Anatomical structures were blindly evaluated by three independent experienced observers using a visual scoring system previously reported and adapted to the equine carpal region. A descriptive evaluation was carried out as well as Spearman's rank correlation and interobserver agreement was shown by percent agreement (PA). Results: Visualization of osseous structures was excellent in both MDCT and CBCT. Articular cartilage could only be assessed in contrast enhanced scans whereby MDCT showed a slightly better visualization than CBCT. Soft tissue structures were generally difficult to assess. An exception were the medial and lateral palmar intercarpal ligament, which could not be visualized in native but were well visualized in contrast enhanced scans in both MDCT and CBCT images. Discussion/conclusion: For the evaluation of osseous structures and some intraarticular ligaments after contrast enhancement, CBCT serves as a reliable diagnostic imaging modality for the equine carpal region. However, soft tissue structures and cartilage are imaged more reliably using MDCT.

    Keywords: horse, Carpal joint, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Multidetector Computed Tomography, Anatomy, diagnostic

    Received: 12 May 2024; Accepted: 01 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Hagenbach, Bierau, Cruz, Koch, Manso-Díaz, Büttner, Staszyk and Röcken. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Marie Hagenbach, Clinic for Equine Surgery, Orthopedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Giessen, Giessen, 35392, Germany

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.