FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Caudal foot placement superior to toe elevation for navicula...
Equine veterinary journal2022; 55(1); 122-128; doi: 10.1111/evj.13563

Caudal foot placement superior to toe elevation for navicular palmaroproximal-palmarodistal-oblique image quality.

Abstract: Palmaroproximal-palmarodistal oblique (PaPr-PaDiO) radiographs are regularly obtained for a full evaluation of the navicular bone (NB). Despite their routine use, different acquisition techniques are described. Objective: To determine optimal foot placement and beam angle for obtaining PaPr-PaDiO views. Methods: In vitro experiment. Methods: A convenience sample of 26 disarticulated forelimbs were placed in six different positions using a leg press to mimic the weight-bearing position. In each position, navicular PaPr-PaDiO images were obtained with eight different beam angles. The resulting 1248 radiographs were graded for their diagnostic quality and the compacta spongiosa demarcation of the NB. Results: Diagnostic quality and compacta-spongiosa demarcation was graded higher for feet positioned caudally and angle between 40° and 45°. Elevation of the toe significantly decreased the NB palmar border angle (elevated mean: 40.66, SD: 4.46, non-elevated mean: 42.06, SD: 4.70) (P < .01), but seemed to have no obvious positive influence on radiographs. Conclusions: Using disarticulated legs could only mimic positions but, using a press, weight-bearing positions were replicated as closely as possible. The use of a convenience sample makes the results of the study exploratory only. Conclusions: Caudal foot placement seems to improve the image quality of the navicular PaPr-PaDiO view. The widely used standard beam angle of 45° appears to be the favourable angle for acquisition with a varied range of -5°. Elevation of the toe, standard in most commercially available navicular skyline cassette holders, does not influence the obtained image quality. Unassigned: Palmaroproximal-palmarodistal oblique (PaPr-PaDiO) Röntgenbilder werden häufig zur Beurteilung des Strahlbeins (NB) angefertigt. Trotz ihrer routinemäßigen Verwendung werden unterschiedliche Aufnahmetechniken beschrieben. Unassigned: Bestimmung der optimalen Hufpositionierung und des optimalen Strahlenwinkels für die Aufnahme von PaPr-DaDiO Röntgenbildern. Methods: In-vitro Experiment. Methods: Eine repräsentative Stichprobe von sechsundzwanzig Vordergliedmaßen wurde mit Hilfe einer Extremitätenpresse (um die gewichtstragende Position zu imitieren) in sechs verschiedenen Positionen fixiert. In jeder Position wurden PaPr-PaDiO Röntgenbilder des Strahlbeins mit acht verschiedenen Strahlenwinkeln aufgenommen. Die daraus resultierenden 1248 Röntgenbilder wurden nach ihrer diagnostischen Qualität und Abgrenzung der Kompakta und Spongiosa des Strahlbeins bewertet. Results: Die diagnostische Qualität und die Kompakta-Spongiosa Abgrenzung wurden bei kaudal positionierten Hufen und Winkeln zwischen 40 und 45 Grad besser bewertet. Die Erhöhung der Zehe verringerte signifikant den Winkel der Sehnengleitfläche des Strahlbeins (erhöhter Mittelwert: 40.66, SD: 4.46, nicht erhöhter Mittelwert: 42.06, SD: 4.70) (p < 0.01), schien aber keinen offensichtlichen positiven Einfluss auf die Röntgenbilder zu haben. WICHTIGSTE EINSCHRÄNKUNGEN: Durch die Verwendung von abgesetzten Extremitäten wurden die Positionierungen nur nachgeahmt. Die Verwendung der Presse ermöglichte es die gewichtstragenden Positionen so genau wie möglich nachzubilden. Durch die Verwendung einer Zufallsstichprobe haben die Ergebnisse einen explorativen Charakter. Unassigned: Eine kaudale Hufpositionierung scheint die Bildqualität der PaPr-PaDiO-Ansicht des Strahlbeins zu verbessern. Der weitverbreitet genutzte Strahlenwinkel von 45 Grad scheint der beste Winkel für diese Aufnahme zu sein mit einer Variation von - 5 Grad. Die Erhöhung der Zehe, die bei den meisten handelsüblichen Skyline Kassettenhaltern Standard ist, hat keinen Einfluss auf die Bildqualität.
© 2022 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-02-15 PubMed ID: 35092326PubMed Central: PMC10078718DOI: 10.1111/evj.13563Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research aimed to confirm the optimal foot positioning and beam angle for creating high-quality radiographs of a horse’s navicular bone (a bone in the hoof). The team used 26 disarticulated forelimbs and positioned them in six different stances, using a leg press machine to simulate weight-bearing. They produced radiographs at eight different angles for each position and subsequently assessed the quality of the images. The results suggest that caudal foot placement and a beam angle between 40° and 45° yield optimal results, while elevating the toe seems to have no positive effect on the images’ quality.

Objective and Methodology

  • The main goal of this research was to identify the best horse foot placement and beam angle for acquiring quality Palmaroproximal-palmarodistal oblique (PaPr-PaDiO) radiographs of the navicular bone in the hoof.
  • The study used 26 disarticulated horse forelimbs and put them in six different positions, using a leg press to simulate a weight-bearing stance. The researchers took PaPr-PaDiO radiographs of the navicular bone at eight different beam angles for each foot position.
  • The total of 1248 generated images were then evaluated for their diagnostic quality and the definition of the compacta spongiosa of the navicular bone.

Results

  • The results indicate that the diagnostic quality and definition of compacta-spongiosa were scored higher for feet placed caudally (toward the tail) and when the beam angle was between 40° and 45°.
  • Raising the toe during the procedure significantly decreased the navicular bone palmar border angle with no noticeable positive influence on the resulting radiographs’ quality.

Conclusions

  • Although the study used disarticulated legs, thus only mimicking real-life conditions, the leg press allowed for a close replication of weight-bearing positions.
  • The study’s findings are exploratory due to the use of a convenience sampling method.
  • Significantly, caudal foot positioning appears to improve the image quality of the navicular bone’s PaPr-PaDiO view.
  • The commonly employed beam angle of 45° appears to be the most suitable angle for such radiographs, with an acceptable variation of -5°.
  • Contrary to usual practice, toe elevation, common in most commercially available navicular skyline cassette holders, does not affect the final image quality.

Cite This Article

APA
Peeters MWJ, Thursby JJ, Watson HE, Berner D. (2022). Caudal foot placement superior to toe elevation for navicular palmaroproximal-palmarodistal-oblique image quality. Equine Vet J, 55(1), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13563

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 55
Issue: 1
Pages: 122-128

Researcher Affiliations

Peeters, Manon W J
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, Equine Referral Hospital, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
Thursby, Jasmine J
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, Equine Referral Hospital, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
Watson, Hannah E
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, Equine Referral Hospital, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
Berner, Dagmar
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, Equine Referral Hospital, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • Horse Diseases
  • Tarsal Bones / diagnostic imaging
  • Forelimb / diagnostic imaging
  • Foot
  • Toes

Conflict of Interest Statement

No competing interests have been declared.

References

This article includes 15 references
  1. Dyson S. Radiological interpretation of the navicular bone. Equine Vet Educ 2011;23:73–87.
  2. Morgan JP. Radiology in veterinary orthopedics. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1972; pp. 366–70.
  3. O'Brien TR, Millman TM, Pool RR, Suter PF. Navicular disease in the thoroughbred horse: a morphologic investigation relative to a new radiographic projection. Vet Radiol 1975;16:39–51.
  4. Kaser‐Hotz B, Ueltschi G. Radiographic appearance of the navicular bone in sound horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992;33:9–17.
  5. Weaver M, Barakzai S. Radiography of the foot. In: Weaver M, Barakzai S, editors. Handbook of equine radiography. 1st ed. Edinburgh, New York: Saunders/Elsevier, 2010; p. 19–33.
  6. Groth AM, May SA, Weaver MP, Weller R. Intra- and interobserver agreement in the interpretation of navicular bones on radiographs and computed tomography scans.. Equine Vet J 2009 Feb;41(2):124-9.
    pubmed: 19418739doi: 10.2746/042516408x345125google scholar: lookup
  7. Johnson SA, Barrett MF, Frisbie DD. Additional palmaroproximal-palmarodistal oblique radiographic projections improve accuracy of detection and characterization of equine flexor cortical lysis.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2018 Jul;59(4):387-395.
    pubmed: 29707844doi: 10.1111/vru.12620google scholar: lookup
  8. Butler JA, Colles CM, Dyson SJ, Kold SE, Poulos PW. Chapter 3: the foot. In: Butler JA, Colles CM, Dyson SJ, Kold SE, Poulos PW, editors. Clinical radiology of the horse. 4th ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2017; p. 118.
  9. Bathe AP, Joyner SM. Limitations and improvements in the quality of navicular flexor view radiographs. Proc Am Assoc Equine Practners 2003;49:317–9.
  10. Schramme M. Diagnostic imaging: radiography and radiology of the foot. In: Floyd A, Mansmann R, editors. Equine podiatry. 1st ed. St Louis: Saunders, 2007; p. 141–59.
  11. Pauwels FE, Rogers CW, Wharton H, Flemming H, Wightman PF, Green RW. RADIOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS OF HOOF BALANCE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY A HORSE'S STANCE.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2017 Jan;58(1):10-17.
    pubmed: 27859901doi: 10.1111/vru.12443google scholar: lookup
  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.. Biometrics 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74.
    pubmed: 843571
  13. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalized estimating equations. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2003; p. 34.
  14. Morandi F. Chapter 27: equine navicular bone. In: Thrall DE, editor. Textbook of veterinary diagnostic radiology. 7th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2018; p. 551–65.
  15. Morgan JP, Neves J, Baker T. Equine radiographic protocols 2. Navicular bone. In: Morgan JP, Neves J, Baker T, editors. Equine radiography. 1st ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1991; p. 89–115.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,383 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.