FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / BMC Vet Res / Comparison of image quality and in vivo appearance of the no...
BMC veterinary research2016; 12; 13; doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0643-6

Comparison of image quality and in vivo appearance of the normal equine nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses in computed tomography and high field (3.0 T) magnetic resonance imaging.

Abstract: Computed tomography (CT) is a well-established imaging technique in the diagnostics of equine sinunasal disease. High-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming more readily available in equine veterinary medicine. MRI is appreciated for its superior ability to depict soft tissues with high contrast. To compare the established technique of CT in the depiction of the equine nasal cavities, paranasal sinuses and adjoining anatomical structures to 3 Tesla MRI the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses of 13 horses were examined using CT and 3 Tesla MRI. Results: Comparison of CT and MRI images of the paranasal sinuses, nasal cavities and adjoining anatomical structures of 13 healthy horses showed that the inter-rater agreement for the CT examinations was higher than the inter-rater agreement for the MRI examinations. CT images proved to be significantly higher rated for the depiction of cortical bone, while MR images were higher rated for the appearance of soft tissues. For the distinction between different tissues or anatomical structures the MR images were significantly higher rated and especially T2-weighted sequences allowed for a good distinction between delicate structures. None of the MRI sequences produced an exact depiction of the lumen of the nasomaxillary aperture while the CT with a bone window allowed for a satisfying visualization. Conclusions: The CT is an imaging modality that produces high quality images within a short time when examining equine nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses. The strength of CT lies in the high quality depiction of large and delicate structures with high radiodensity. High field MRI with a field strength of 3 Tesla produces images of high quality that allow for the distinction of delicate soft tissue structures but requires long examination times. The high field strength of 3 Tesla magnetic imaging introduces new possibilities in tomographic soft tissue imaging of the equine head but cannot match up with the CT in terms of visualization of bone and total examination duration. Therefore, clinicians should consider the exact imaging needs in clinical cases to decide whether a single examination or a combination of both imaging techniques may promise the greatest benefit for the patient.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2016-01-19 PubMed ID: 26786270PubMed Central: PMC4717646DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0643-6Google 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
  • Comparative Study
  • 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 article compares the performance of Computed Tomography (CT) and high-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) at 3 Tesla level in depicting the equine nasal cavities, paranasal sinuses and other adjoining anatomical structures. The findings suggest that CT images are rated higher for showing cortical bone, while MRI images have better rendering of soft tissues. Similarly, MRI excels in distinguishing between various tissues or anatomical structures, however, CT provides faster results.

Methodology and Results

  • The research involved the examination of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses of 13 horses using CT and 3 Tesla MRI.
  • Inter-rater agreement, which refers to the degree of consensus among raters or evaluators, was found to be higher for CT examinations compared to MRI.
  • CT images were rated higher for presenting cortical bone, while MRI images were favored for their depiction of soft tissues.

Differentiating between Tissues and Anatomical Structures

  • MRI images were significantly superior in differentiating between various tissues and anatomical structures, particularly under T2-weighted sequences.
  • However, none of the MRI sequences were able to produce an exact depiction of the nasomaxillary aperture’s lumen, which the CT imaging was able to visualize satisfactorily with a bone window.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Imaging Modality

  • CT provides high-quality images in a shorter time when examining equine nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses, particularly excelling in presenting structures with high radiodensity.
  • On the other hand, the high field MRI at 3 Tesla produces high quality images that make it possible to identify delicate soft tissue structures, however it requires longer examination times.
  • MRI introduces new possibilities for soft tissue imaging in the equine head but cannot compete with CT in terms of visualizing bone and overall examination duration.

Conclusion

  • The choice between CT and MRI for imaging should be based on the exact imaging requirements of a given case to determine if either one or a combination of both techniques would offer the most benefit for the patient.

Cite This Article

APA
Kaminsky J, Bienert-Zeit A, Hellige M, Rohn K, Ohnesorge B. (2016). Comparison of image quality and in vivo appearance of the normal equine nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses in computed tomography and high field (3.0 T) magnetic resonance imaging. BMC Vet Res, 12, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0643-6

Publication

BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
NlmUniqueID: 101249759
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 12
Pages: 13
PII: 13

Researcher Affiliations

Kaminsky, Joachim
  • Clinic for Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, Hannover, D-30559, Germany. joachim-kaminsky@gmx.de.
Bienert-Zeit, Astrid
  • Clinic for Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, Hannover, D-30559, Germany. Astrid.Bienert@tiho-hannover.de.
Hellige, Maren
  • Clinic for Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, Hannover, D-30559, Germany. Maren.Hellige@tiho-hannover.de.
Rohn, Karl
  • Institute for Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 2, Hannover, D-30559, Germany. Karl.Rohn@tiho-hannover.de.
Ohnesorge, Bernhard
  • Clinic for Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, Hannover, D-30559, Germany. Bernhard.Ohnesorge@tiho-hannover.de.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Female
  • Horses / anatomy & histology
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / veterinary
  • Male
  • Nasal Cavity / anatomy & histology
  • Paranasal Sinuses / anatomy & histology
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / veterinary

References

This article includes 38 references
  1. Bertone JJ, Biller DS, Ruggles A. Diagnostic techniques for evaluation of the paranasal sinuses.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1993 Apr;9(1):75-91.
    pubmed: 8472206doi: 10.1016/s0749-0739(17)30416-9google scholar: lookup
  2. Gibbs C, Lane JG. Radiographic examination of the facial, nasal and paranasal sinus regions of the horse. II. Radiological findings.. Equine Vet J 1987 Sep;19(5):474-82.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1987.tb02648.xpubmed: 3678193google scholar: lookup
  3. Tremaine WH, Dixon PM. A long-term study of 277 cases of equine sinonasal disease. Part 1: details of horses, historical, clinical and ancillary diagnostic findings.. Equine Vet J 2001 May;33(3):274-82.
    doi: 10.2746/042516401776249615pubmed: 11352350google scholar: lookup
  4. Weller R, Livesey L, Maierl J, Nuss K, Bowen IM, Cauvin ER, Weaver M, Schumacher J, May SA. Comparison of radiography and scintigraphy in the diagnosis of dental disorders in the horse.. Equine Vet J 2001 Jan;33(1):49-58.
    doi: 10.2746/042516401776767458pubmed: 11191610google scholar: lookup
  5. Park RD. Radiographic examination of the equine head.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1993 Apr;9(1):49-74.
    pubmed: 8472205doi: 10.1016/s0749-0739(17)30415-7google scholar: lookup
  6. Parente EJ, Franklin SH, Derksen FJ, Weishaupt MA, Chalmers HJ, Tessier C. Diagnostic techniques in equine upper respiratory tract disease.. In: Auer JA, Stick JA, editors. Equine surgery. 4. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. pp. 536–57.
  7. Kraft SL, Gavin P. Physical principles and technical considerations for equine computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2001 Apr;17(1):115-30, vii.
    pubmed: 11488039doi: 10.1016/s0749-0739(17)30078-0google scholar: lookup
  8. Baptiste KE, Pleasant RS, Jones JC, Sponenberg DP, Sysel A, McLamb DJ. Paranasal sinus osteoma in an American miniature horse: computed tomographic evaluation and surgical management.. Equine Practice 1996;18:14–9.
  9. Bienert A. Digitalradiographische, computertomographische und mikrobiologische Untersuchungen bei Backenzahnerkrankungen des Pferdes.. Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover: Hannover; 2002.
  10. Cissell DD, Wisner ER, Textor J, Mohr FC, Scrivani PV, Théon AP. Computed tomographic appearance of equine sinonasal neoplasia.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012 May-Jun;53(3):245-51.
    pubmed: 22211373doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2011.01913.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  11. Henninger W, Frame EM, Willmann M, Simhofer H, Malleczek D, Kneissl SM, Mayrhofer E. CT features of alveolitis and sinusitis in horses.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2003 May-Jun;44(3):269-76.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2003.tb00454.xpubmed: 12816367google scholar: lookup
  12. Veraa S, Dijkman R, Klein WR, Van den Belt AJ. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of malignant sinonasal tumours in three horses.. Equine Vet Educ 2009;21:284–8.
    doi: 10.2746/095777309X423031google scholar: lookup
  13. Manso-Díanz G, García-López JM, Maranda L, Taeymans O. The role of head computed tomography in equine practice.. Equine Vet Educ 2015;27:136–45.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12275google scholar: lookup
  14. Arencibia A, Vázquez JM, Jaber R, Gil F, Ramírez JA, Rivero M, González N, Wisner ER. Magnetic resonance imaging and cross sectional anatomy of the normal equine sinuses and nasal passages.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000 Jul-Aug;41(4):313-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2000.tb02079.xpubmed: 10955492google scholar: lookup
  15. Garrett KS, Woodie JB, Cook JL, Williams NM. Imaging diagnosis--nasal septal and laryngeal cyst-like malformationsin a Thoroughbred weanling colt diagnosed using ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010 Sep-Oct;51(5):504-7.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2010.01703.xpubmed: 20973382google scholar: lookup
  16. Gerlach K, Flatz K, Brehm W, Seeger J. Klinische Anatomie des Gesichtsbereiches des Pferdes in der Magnetresonanztomographie.. Pferdeheilkunde 2009;25:45–52.
  17. Gerlach K, Gerhards H. Magnetresonanztomographische Merkmale von Zubildungen im Brereich der Nase, Nasennebenhöhlen und der angrenzenden Knochen: retrospektive Analyse von 33 Pferden.. Pferdeheilkunde 2008;24:565–76.
  18. Cavalleri JM, Metzger J, Hellige M, Lampe V, Stuckenschneider K, Tipold A, Beineke A, Becker K, Distl O, Feige K. Morphometric magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing in cerebellar abiotrophy in Arabian horses.. BMC Vet Res 2013 May 23;9:105.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-105pmc: PMC3671216pubmed: 23702154google scholar: lookup
  19. Gutiérrez-Crespo B, Kircher PR, Carrera I. 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the occipitoatlantoaxial region in the normal horse.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2014 May-Jun;55(3):278-85.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12121pubmed: 24219352google scholar: lookup
  20. Hontoir F, Nisolle JF, Meurisse H, Simon V, Tallier M, Vanderstricht R, Antoine N, Piret J, Clegg P, Vandeweerd JM. A comparison of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography arthrography to identify structural cartilage defects of the fetlock joint in the horse.. Vet J 2014 Jan;199(1):115-22.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.10.021pubmed: 24321368google scholar: lookup
  21. Junker C. Studien über die Abbildung von Kopf und Hals des Pferdes mittels Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT). München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München; 2002.
  22. Morrow KL, Park RD, Spurgeon TL, Stashak TS, Arceneaux B. Computed tomographic imaging of the equine head.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000 Nov-Dec;41(6):491-7.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2000.tb01876.xpubmed: 11130787google scholar: lookup
  23. Arencibia A, Vázquez JM, Rivero M, Latorre R, Sandoval JA, Vilar JM, Ramírez JA. Computed tomography of normal cranioencephalic structures in two horses.. Anat Histol Embryol 2000 Oct;29(5):295-9.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0264.2000.00278.xpubmed: 11103519google scholar: lookup
  24. Barbee DD, Allen JR, Gavin PR. Computed tomography in horses.. Vet Radiol 1987;28:144–51.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.1987.tb00043.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Brinkschulte M, Bienert-Zeit A, Lüpke M, Hellige M, Staszyk C, Ohnesorge B. Using semi-automated segmentation of computed tomography datasets for three-dimensional visualization and volume measurements of equine paranasal sinuses.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013 Nov-Dec;54(6):582-90.
    pubmed: 23890087doi: 10.1111/vru.12080google scholar: lookup
  26. Probst A, Henninger W, Willmann M. Communications of normal nasal and paranasal cavities in computed tomography of horses.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005 Jan-Feb;46(1):44-8.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2005.00008.xpubmed: 15693558google scholar: lookup
  27. Smallwood JE, Wood BC, Taylor WE, Tate LP Jr. Anatomic reference for computed tomography of the head of the foal.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2002 Mar-Apr;43(2):99-117.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2002.tb01657.xpubmed: 11954820google scholar: lookup
  28. Johnston GM, Eastment JK, Wood J, Taylor PM. The confidential enquiry into perioperative equine fatalities (CEPEF): mortality results of Phases 1 and 2.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2002 Oct;29(4):159-170.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1467-2995.2002.00106.xpubmed: 28404360google scholar: lookup
  29. Saunders J, Nelson A, Vanderperren K. Particularities of equine CT.. In: Schwarz T, Saunders J, editors. Veterinary computed tomography. 1. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011. pp. 421–6.
  30. Porter EG, Werpy NM. New concepts in standing advanced diagnostic equine imaging.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2014 Apr;30(1):239-68.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2013.11.001pubmed: 24680215google scholar: lookup
  31. Fatterpekar GM, Delman BN, Som PM. Imaging the paranasal sinuses: where we are and where we are going.. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2008 Nov;291(11):1564-72.
    doi: 10.1002/ar.20773pubmed: 18951498google scholar: lookup
  32. Gerlach K, Cronau M, McMullen R, Gerhards H. Magnetresonanztomographische Untersuchungen von Melanomen im Kopfbereich bei drei Pferden.. Pferdeheilkunde 2007;23:259–62.
  33. Hoppe CT, Horstmann W, Gerhards H. Kernspintomographische Untersuchung von Erkrankungen der Kopfregion des Pferdes-drei Fallberichte.. Pferdeheilkunde 2003;19:143–50.
  34. Tucker RL, Sampson SN. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for the horse.. Clinical Techniques in Equine Practice 2007;6:2–15.
    doi: 10.1053/j.ctep.2006.11.001google scholar: lookup
  35. Weishaupt D, Köchli VD, Marincek B. Wie funktioniert MRI?. 6. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2009.
  36. Chang KJ, Kamel IR, Macura KJ, Bluemke DA. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T.. Radiographics 2008 Nov-Dec;28(7):1983-98.
    doi: 10.1148/rg.287075154pubmed: 19001653google scholar: lookup
  37. Merkle EM, Dale BM. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited.. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 Jun;186(6):1524-32.
    doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0932pubmed: 16714640google scholar: lookup
  38. Brinkschulte M. Morphologische Untersuchung der Apertura nasomaxillaris des Pferdes sowie deren Verzweigung in die Nasennebenhöhlen unter der Anwendung dreidimensionaler Rekonstruktion computertomographischer Schnittbildserien.. Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover: Hannover; 2012.

Citations

This article has been cited 8 times.
  1. Hagag U, Nahas AE, Almohamad ZA, Brehm W, Gerlach K. 3T Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of the bovine carpus. BMC Vet Res 2022 Jun 22;18(1):236.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03346-wpubmed: 35733155google scholar: lookup
  2. Li LX, Lv YJ, Guo QY, Liao Y, Guo YW, Su ZN, Yao DW, Yang DJ. Radiography, CT, and MRI Diagnosis of Enzootic Nasal Tumor in Goats Infected With Enzootic Nasal Tumor Virus. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:810977.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.810977pubmed: 35359686google scholar: lookup
  3. Liu Y, Wang Y, Shu Y, Zhu J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Images under Deep Learning in the Identification of Tuberculosis and Pneumonia. J Healthc Eng 2021;2021:6772624.
    doi: 10.1155/2021/6772624pubmed: 34956575google scholar: lookup
  4. Emam H, Aref M, Abdelbaset-Ismail A, Abdelaal A, Gouda S, Gomaa M. Description of normal head structures of the one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and cross-sectional anatomy. Vet World 2020 Aug;13(8):1581-1587.
    doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2020.1581-1587pubmed: 33061230google scholar: lookup
  5. Schwieder A, Pfarrer C, Ohnesorge B, Staszyk C, Bienert-Zeit A. Comparative studies on the histological characteristics of equine nasomaxillary aperture and paranasal sinus mucosa considering topographic and age-related differences. Acta Vet Scand 2020 Jun 23;62(1):34.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-020-00534-2pubmed: 32576268google scholar: lookup
  6. Röttiger C, Hellige M, Ohnesorge B, Bienert-Zeit A. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of equine cheek teeth and adjacent structures: comparative study of image quality in horses in vivo, post-mortem and frozen-thawed. Acta Vet Scand 2019 Dec 10;61(1):62.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-019-0495-8pubmed: 31823831google scholar: lookup
  7. Quan S, He L, Geng J, Wang J. Pediatric nasal dermoid sinus cysts: advances in pathogenesis, management strategies, and translational research-a multidisciplinary management perspective. Front Pediatr 2025;13:1708853.
    doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1708853pubmed: 41585020google scholar: lookup
  8. Abdel Maksoud MKM, Hagag U, Salouci M, Mahmoud HH, Ibrahim AAH. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the normal distal limb in sheep (Ovis aries). BMC Vet Res 2025 Nov 13;21(1):664.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-025-04513-5pubmed: 41233783google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,101 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.