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 / Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot...
Equine veterinary journal2020; 53(3); 469-480; doi: 10.1111/evj.13330

Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot is significantly influenced by acquisition system.

Abstract: Investigation of image quality in clinical equine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may optimise diagnostic value. Objective: To assess the influence of field strength and anaesthesia on image quality in MR imaging of the equine foot in a clinical context. Methods: Analytical clinical study. Methods: Fifteen equine foot studies (five studies per system) were randomly selected from the clinical databases of three MR imaging systems: low-field standing (LF St), low-field anaesthetised (LF GA) and high-field anaesthetised (HF GA). Ten experienced observers graded image quality for entire studies and seven clinically important anatomical structures within the foot (briefly, grade 1: textbook quality, grade 2: high diagnostic quality, grade 3: satisfactory diagnostic quality, grade 4: non-diagnostic). Statistical analysis assessed the effect of anaesthesia and field strength using a combination of the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney test. Results: There was no difference in the proportion of entire studies of diagnostic quality between LF St (90%, 95% CI 78%-97%) and LF GA (88%, 76-95%, P = .7). No differences were evident in the proportion of diagnostic studies or median image quality gradings between LF St and LF GA when assessing individual anatomical structures (both groups all median grades = 3). There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of entire studies of diagnostic quality between LF GA and HF GA (100%, 95% CI lower bound 94%, P = .03). There were statistically significant differences in median image quality gradings between LF GA (all median grades = 3) and HF GA (median grades = 1 (5/7 structures) or 2 (2/7 structures) for all individual anatomical structures (all P < .001). The reasons reported for reduced image quality differed between systems. Conclusions: Randomised selection of cases from clinical databases. Individual observer preferences may influence image quality assessment. Conclusions: Field strength is a more important influencer of image quality than anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging of the equine foot in clinical patients.
© 2020 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-09-05 PubMed ID: 32767582DOI: 10.1111/evj.13330Google 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.

This research explores the impact of magnetic resonance (MR) image acquisition systems and anaesthesia on the quality of clinical images of horse’s feet. It finds that the field strength of the imaging system plays a more significant role in the image quality than the use of anaesthesia.

Study Design and Methodology

In conducting the study, researchers selected fifteen randomly equine foot studies from the databases of three distinct MR imaging systems. These systems include low-field standing (LS St), low-field anaesthetised (LF GA), and high-field anaesthetised (HF GA). The selection incorporated five studies per system. Ten expert observers assessed the image quality for entire studies and seven clinically important anatomical structures in the foot.

This assessment applied a grading scale from one to four, where one represented textbook quality, and four reflected non-diagnostic quality. The research combined the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney test for statistical analysis. This was conducted to evaluate the influence of field strength and anaesthesia on the image quality.

Results and Findings

  • The results revealed no significant difference in the proportion of diagnostic quality studies between LF St and LF GA. Both had median image quality grades equal to three when evaluating individual anatomical structures.
  • There were substantial differences in the diagnostic quality proportions between LF GA and HF GA.
  • Field strength introduced significant differences in the median quality gradings between LF GA and HF GA. The LF GA system averaged a median grade of 3 across all anatomical structures, while the HF GA system recorded median grades of either 1 or 2.

Conclusion

The research concluded that field strength is a more critical determinant of image quality than anaesthesia in clinical equine foot MR imaging. This underscores the necessity of prioritizing field strength when considering system equipment for equine foot magnetic resonance imaging in a clinical setting. However, the study recognized that individual observer preferences might influence the image quality assessment. Distinct factors affected the quality of images obtained via different systems. Therefore, the research suggests random selection of cases from clinical databases.

Cite This Article

APA
Byrne CA, Marshall JF, Voute LC. (2020). Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot is significantly influenced by acquisition system. Equine Vet J, 53(3), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13330

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 53
Issue: 3
Pages: 469-480

Researcher Affiliations

Byrne, Christian A
  • Weipers Centre Equine Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Marshall, John F
  • Weipers Centre Equine Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Voute, Lance C
  • Weipers Centre Equine Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Foot
  • Horses
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / veterinary

Grant Funding

  • SPrj033 / Horserace Betting Levy Board

References

This article includes 56 references
  1. Murray RC, Schramme MC, Dyson SJ, Branch MV, Blunden TS. Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of the foot in horses with palmar foot pain and control horses.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006;47:1-16.
  2. Barrett MF, Frisbie DD, King MR, Werpy NM, Kawcak CE. A review of how magnetic resonance imaging can aid in case management of common pathological conditions of the equine foot.. Equine Vet Educ 2017;29:683-93.
  3. Dyson S, Murray R, Schramme M, Branch M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the equine foot: 15 horses.. Equine Vet J 2003;35:18-26.
  4. Dyson S, Murray R, Schramme M, Branch M. Lameness in 46 horses associated with deep digital flexor tendonitis in the digit: diagnosis confirmed with magnetic resonance imaging.. Equine Vet J 2003;35:681-90.
  5. Whitton RC, Buckley C, Donovan T, Wales AD, Dennis R. The diagnosis of lameness associated with distal limb pathology in a horse: a comparison of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.. Vet J 1998;155:223-9.
  6. Vallance SA, Bell RJW, Spriet M, Kass PH, Puchalski SM. Comparisons of computed tomography, contrast enhanced computed tomography and standing low-field magnetic resonance imaging in horses with lameness localised to the foot. Part 1: anatomical visualisation scores.. Equine Vet J 2012;44:51-6.
  7. Vallance SA, Bell RJW, Spriet M, Kass PH, Puchalski SM. Comparisons of computed tomography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography and standing low-field magnetic resonance imaging in horses with lameness localised to the foot. Part 2: lesion identification.. Equine Vet J 2012;44:149-56.
  8. Murray RC, Werpy N. Image interpretation and artefacts.. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010; p. 101-45.
  9. McRobbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR. Ghosts in the machine: quality control.. In: McRobbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR, editors. MRI from picture to proton, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017; p. 166-82.
  10. Murray RC, Mair TS, Sherlock CE, Blunden AS. Comparison of high-field and low-field magnetic resonance images of cadaver limbs of horses.. Vet Rec 2009;165:281-8.
  11. Bolen G, Audigié F, Spriet M, Vandenberghe F, Busoni V. Qualitative comparison of 0.27T, 1.5T, and 3T magnetic resonance images of the normal equine foot.. J Equine Vet Sci 2010;30:9-20.
  12. Ghazinoor S, Crues JV 3rd, Crowley C. Low-field musculoskeletal MRI.. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:234-44.
  13. Porter EG, Werpy NM. New concepts in standing advanced diagnostic equine imaging.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2014;30:239-68.
  14. McKnight AL, Manduca A, Felmlee JP, Rossman PJ, McGee KP, Ehman RL. Motion-correction techniques for standing equine MRI.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2004;45:513-9.
  15. Evrard L, Audigié F, Bertoni L, Jacquet S, Denoix J-M, Busoni V. Low field magnetic resonance imaging of the equine distal interphalangeal joint: comparison between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions.. PLoS One 2019;14:e0211101.
  16. Gutierrez-Nibeyro SD, Werpy NM, White NA, Mccutcheon LJ, Weng HY, Christopher JM. Standing low-field magnetic resonance imaging appearance of normal collateral ligaments of the equine distal interphalangeal joint.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011;52:521-33.
  17. Mair TS, Kinns J, Jones RD, Bolas NM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the distal limb of the standing horse: technique and review of 40 cases of foot lameness.. Proc Am Assoc Equine Practnrs 2003;49:29-41.
  18. Dyson S, Murray R, Schramme M. Lameness associated with foot pain: results of magnetic resonance imaging in 199 horses (January 2001-December 2003) and response to treatment.. Equine Vet J 2005;37:113-21.
  19. Sampson SN, Schneider RK, Gavin PR, Ho CP, Tucker RL, Charles EM. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in horses with recent onset navicular syndrome but without radiographic abnormalities.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009;50:339-46.
  20. Dyson S, Murray RC. Chapter 12: the foot and pastern.. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010; p. 269-314.
  21. Gutierrez-Nibeyro S, Werpy N, White N. Standing low-field magnetic resonance imaging in horses with chronic foot pain.. Aust Vet J 2012;90:75-83.
  22. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research.. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
  23. Howell DC. Statistical methods for psychology, International Edition.. Belmont, USA: Cengage Learning; 2012.
  24. Werpy N. Low-field MRI in horses: practicalities and image acquisition.. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010; p. 75-99.
  25. Stehling C, Souza RB, Hellio Le Graverand M-P, Wyman BT, Li X, Majumdar S. Loading of the knee during 3.0T MRI is associated with significantly increased medial meniscus extrusion in mild and moderate osteoarthritis.. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1839-45.
  26. Bruno F, Barile A, Arrigoni F, Laporta A, Russo A, Carotti M. Weight-bearing MRI of the knee: a review of advantages and limits.. Acta Biomed 2018;89:78-88.
  27. Olive J. Distal interphalangeal articular cartilage assessment using low-field magnetic resonance imaging.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51:259-66.
  28. McKnight AL, Posh J. Articular cartilage lesions seen with MRI at 0.25T in the distal equine limb.. J Equine Vet Sci 2012;32:667-71.
  29. Werpy NM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the equine patient: a comparison of high- and low-field systems.. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2007;6:37-45.
  30. Murray R, Leece E, Judy C. High-field MRI in horses: practicalities and image acquisition.. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010; p. 39-74.
  31. Murray RC, Blunden TS, Schramme MC, Dyson SJ. How does magnetic resonance imaging represent histologic findings in the equine digit?. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006;47:17-31.
  32. Murray RC, Dyson S, Branch M, Schramme M. Validation of magnetic resonance imaging use in equine limbs.. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2007;6:26-36.
  33. Mair TS, Kinns J, Jones RD, Bolas NM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the distal limb of the standing horse.. Equine Vet Educ 2005;17:74-8.
  34. Werpy NM, Ho CP, Pease AP, Kawcak CE. The effect of sequence selection and field strength on detection of osteochondral defects in the metacarpophalangeal joint.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011;52:154-60.
  35. Smith MA, Dyson SJ, Murray RC. Reliability of high- and low-field magnetic resonance imaging systems for detection of cartilage and bone lesions in the equine cadaver fetlock.. Equine Vet J 2012;44:684-91.
  36. Busoni V, Heimann M, Trenteseaux J, Snaps F, Dondelinger RF. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in the equine deep digital flexor tendon and distal sesamoid bone in advanced navicular disease-an ex vivo study.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005;46:279-86.
  37. Dyson S, Blunden T, Murray R. The collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint: magnetic resonance imaging and post mortem observations in 25 lame and 12 control horses.. Equine Vet J 2008;40:538-44.
  38. Dyson S, Pool R, Blunden T, Murray R. The distal sesamoidean impar ligament: comparison between its appearance on magnetic resonance imaging and histology of the axial third of the ligament.. Equine Vet J 2010;42:332-9.
  39. Dyson S, Blunden T, Murray R. Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and histological findings in the navicular bone of horses with foot pain.. Equine Vet J 2012;44:692-8.
  40. Bolas N. Basic MRI principles.. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010; p. 1-37.
  41. Busoni V, Snaps F. Effect of deep digital flexor tendon orientation on magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity in isolated equine limbs-the magic angle effect.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2002;43:428-30.
  42. Spriet M, Mai W, McKnight A. Asymmetric signal intensity in normal collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint in horses with a low-field MRI system due to the magic angle effect.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007;48:95-100.
  43. Spriet M, McKnight A. Characterization of the magic angle effect in the equine deep digital flexor tendon using a low-field magnetic resonance system.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009;50:32-6.
  44. Werpy NM, Ho CP, Kawcak CE. Magic angle effect in normal collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint in horses imaged with a high-field magnetic resonance imaging system.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51:2-10.
  45. Smith MA, Dyson SJ, Murray RC. Is a magic angle effect observed in the collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint or the oblique sesamoidean ligaments during standing magnetic resonance imaging?. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:509-15.
  46. Werpy NM, Ho CP, Garcia EB, Kawcak CE. The effect of varying echo time using T2-weighted FSE sequences on the magic angle effect in the collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint in horses.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013;54:31-5.
  47. Sherlock CE, Mair TS. Magic angle effect on low field magnetic resonance images in the superficial digital flexor tendon in the equine proximal pastern region.. Vet J 2016;217:126-31.
  48. Spriet M, Zwingenberger A. Influence of the position of the foot on MRI signal in the deep digital flexor tendon and collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint in the standing horse.. Equine Vet J 2009;41:498-503.
  49. Smith MA, Milmine R, Dyson SJ, Murray RC. Optimazation of STIR sequences for equine low field standing MRI.. In: Proceedings of the European Veterinary Conference Voorjaarsdagen. 2008; p. 323.
  50. Bolen G, Haye D, Dondelinger R, Busoni V. Magnetic resonance signal changes during time in equine limbs refrigerated at 4 degrees C.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51:19-24.
  51. Andersen MS, Clark L, Dyson SJ, Newton JR. Risk factors for colic in horses after general anaesthesia for MRI or nonabdominal surgery: absence of evidence of effect from perianaesthetic morphine.. Equine Vet J 2006;38:368-74.
  52. Franci P, Leece EA, Brearley JC. Post anaesthetic myopathy/neuropathy in horses undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared to horses undergoing surgery.. Equine Vet J 2006;38:497-501.
  53. Moreno KL, Scallan EM, Friedeck WO, Simon BT. Transient pelvic limb neuropathy following proximal metatarsal and tarsal magnetic resonance imaging in seven horses.. Equine Vet J 2020;52:359-63.
  54. Kendall MG, Babington Smith B. The problem of m rankings.. Ann Math Stat 1939;10:275-87.
  55. Bladon B. Magnetic resonance imaging and foot lameness. Problem solved? Or do we know we know less now than we know more?. Equine Vet J 2014;46:264-6.
  56. Hallmarq Veterinary Imaging Ltd. Above and beyond: over 100,000 horses scanned in over 100 Standing Equine MRI systems. 2019 [cited 2020 May 14]. https://hallmarq.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/100th-System-and-beyond-PR-310719.pdf.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.