FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association2020; 62(2); 225-235; doi: 10.1111/vru.12944

CT more accurately detects foreign bodies within the equine foot than MRI or digital radiography.

Abstract: Identification and characterization of foreign bodies in the distal limb of horses poses a diagnostic challenge. The aims of this prospective experimental cadaver study were to describe the appearance of five foreign body materials within the equine hoof using CT, MRI, and digital radiography (DR) and to compare interrater agreement among three reviewers. Fifty foreign bodies consisting of five materials were implanted at a solar location or a coronary location in 25 equine cadaver feet. The images were reviewed by three equine veterinarians experienced in advanced imaging interpretation, who were blinded to the material of the foreign body. Foreign bodies were graded on visibility and appearance. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for accurate identification of the different materials. Interrater agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa. Computed tomography had higher visibility score, sensitivity/specificity, and interrater agreement for detection of all materials; particularly slate, glass, and dry wood, compared to the other imaging modalities. Soaked wood and plastic had lower sensitivity (31-33%) on CT with a similar attenuation of the two materials. Foreign bodies were often visible on MRI, although with similar appearance and unclear details. On DR, only slate and glass were visible. The interrater agreement for identifying the correct material was almost perfect for slate, glass, and dry wood (κ = 0.92-1.00) and poor for plastic and soaked wood (κ < 0.20) on CT. Interrater agreement was poor for all materials on MRI and DR (κ < 0.20), with the except for fair (κ = 0.28) for slate on DR and moderate (κ = 0.28) for soaked wood on MRI.
© 2020 American College of Veterinary Radiology.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-12-16 PubMed ID: 33325609DOI: 10.1111/vru.12944Google 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 article investigates how CT scans are more precise in detecting foreign objects within a horse’s foot compared to MRI or digital radiography.

Objective

The study aims to identify the efficiency of different imaging methods – CT, MRI, and digital radiography (DR) – in detecting foreign bodies embedded within the distal limb of horses.

Methodology

  • Fifty foreign bodies of five different materials were embedded in 25 horse cadaver feet.
  • Images of these bodies were taken using CT, MRI, and DR.
  • Three equine veterinarians, blinded to the materials of the foreign body, reviewed the images and graded the visibility and appearance of the foreign bodies.
  • The researchers then calculated the sensitivity (how well the test identifies true positives) and specificity (how well the test identifies true negatives) for each imaging method.

Results

  • CT scans had a higher visibility score, sensitivity, and specificity. They were especially efficient in detecting slate, glass, and dry wood.
  • Soaked wood and plastic proved difficult to detect using CT scans, with a sensitivity rating of 31-33% due to these materials having similar attenuation.
  • Foreign bodies were often visible on MRIs, although the details were unclear.
  • On digital radiography, only slate and glass were visible.
  • The interrater agreement (the consistency among the veterinarians’ assessments) was nearly perfect for detection of slate, glass, and dry wood on CT scans. The agreement was poor for plastic and soaked wood.
  • For MRI and DR testing, interrater agreement was poor for all materials, with the exception of slight agreements with detecting slate on DR and detecting soaked wood on MRI.

Conclusion

The study concludes that CT scans provide a better diagnostic tool when attempting to detect foreign bodies in horses’ feet. CT scans not only more accurately identify foreign bodies but also offer a higher interrater agreement rate amongst veterinarians. However, detecting some materials like soaked wood and plastic remains a challenge to this method.

Cite This Article

APA
Ogden NKE, Milner PI, Stack JD, Talbot AM. (2020). CT more accurately detects foreign bodies within the equine foot than MRI or digital radiography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound, 62(2), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12944

Publication

Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association
ISSN: 1740-8261
NlmUniqueID: 9209635
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 62
Issue: 2
Pages: 225-235

Researcher Affiliations

Ogden, Nadine K E
  • Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK.
Milner, Peter I
  • Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK.
Stack, John D
  • Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK.
Talbot, Alison M
  • Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cadaver
  • Foot / diagnostic imaging
  • Foot / pathology
  • Foreign Bodies / diagnostic imaging
  • Foreign Bodies / veterinary
  • Horses
  • Humans
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / veterinary
  • Prospective Studies
  • Radiographic Image Enhancement / methods
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / veterinary

References

This article includes 28 references
  1. Milner PI. Diagnosis and management of solar penetrations.. Equine Vet Educ 2011;23:142-147.
  2. Robinson PD, Rajayogeswaran V, Orr R. Unlikely foreign bodies in unusual facial sites.. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;35:36-39.
  3. Stockmann P, Vairaktaris E, Fenner M, Tudor C, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Conventional radiographs: are they still the standard in localization of projectiles?. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:71-75.
  4. Javadrashid R, Fouladi DF, Golamian M. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2015;44:20140229.
  5. Urraca Del Junco CI, Mair TS, Powell SE. Magnetic resonance imaging findings of equine solar penetration wounds.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012;53:71-75.
  6. Meehan L. Should I use magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate horses with foot penetrations?. Equine Vet Educ 2017;29:521-522.
  7. Gerlach K, Mader D, Delling U. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of penetrating hoof injuries in 10 horses.. Tierarztl Prax Ausgabe G Grosstiere - Nutztiere 2016;44:231-241.
  8. Jarraya M, Hayashi D, De Villiers RV. Multimodality imaging of foreign bodies of the musculoskeletal system.. Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:92-102.
  9. Farr AC, Hawkins JF, Baird DK, Moore GE. Wooden, metallic, hair, bone, and plant foreign bodies in horses: 37 cases (1990-2005).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;237:1173-1179.
  10. Busoni V, Denoix J. Ultrasonography of the podotrochlear apparatus in the horse using a transcuneal approach: technique and reference images.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2001;42:534-540.
  11. Riggs CM. Computed tomography in equine orthopaedics - the next great leap?. Equine Vet Educ 2019;31:151-153.
  12. Haghnegahdar A, Shakibafard A, Khosravifard N. Comparison between computed tomography and ultrasonography in detecting foreign bodies regarding their composition and depth: an in vitro study.. J Dent 2016;17:177-184.
  13. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.. Biochem Medica 2012;22:276-282.
  14. Choi SW, Wong GTC. The art and science of statistical predictions: does a picture need a thousand words?. Anaesthesia 2018;73:784-787.
  15. Shinkins B, Thompson M, Mallett S, Perera R. Diagnostic accuracy studies: how to report and analyse inconclusive test results.. Br Med J 2013;346:f2778.
  16. Findley JA, Pinchbeck GL, Milner PI. Outcome of horses with synovial structure involvement following solar foot penetrations in four UK veterinary hospitals: 95 cases.. Equine Vet J 2014;46:352-357.
  17. Roberts WC. Radiographic characteristics of glass.. AMA Arch Ind Heal 1958;18:470-472.
  18. Mair TS, Kinns J. Deep digital flexor tendonitis in the equine foot diagnosed by low-field magnetic resonance imaging in the standing patient: 18 cases.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005;46:458-466.
  19. Seeram E. Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control.. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2015.
  20. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM, Goldschmidt EJ. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging.. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
  21. Shelsta HN, Bilyk JR, Rubin PA, Penne RB, Carrasco JR. Wooden intraorbital foreign body injuries: clinical characteristics and outcomes of 23 patients.. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;26:238-244.
  22. Dalley RW. Intraorbital wood foreign bodies on CT: use of wide bone window settings to distinguish wood from air.. Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:434-435.
  23. Bolliger SA, Oesterhelweg L, Spendlove D, Ross S, Thali MJ. Is differentiation of frequently encountered foreign bodies in corpses possible by Hounsfield density measurement?. J Forensic Sci 2009;54:1119-1122.
  24. Ruder TD, Thali Y, Bolliger SA. Material differentiation in forensic radiology with single-source dual-energy computed tomography.. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2013;9:163-169.
  25. Ingraham CR, Mannelli L, Robinson JD, Linnau KF. Radiology of foreign bodies: how do we image them?. Emerg Radiol 2015;22:425-430.
  26. Lagalla R, Manfrè L, Caronia A, Bencivinni F, Duranti C, Ponte F. Plain film, CT and MRI sensibility in the evaluation of intraorbital foreign bodies in an in vitro model of the orbit and in pig eyes.. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1338-1341.
  27. Bolas N. Basic MRI principles.. In: Murray CR, ed. Equine MRI. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2016:3-37.
  28. Kayaci S, Tabak A, Durur-Subasi I. Artifacts in cranial MRI caused by extracranial foreign bodies and analysis of these foreign bodies.. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2019;29:299-304.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Inoue K, Yabe S, Kashiwabara S, Itaya Y, Era S, Kikuchi A, Takai Y. A pregnant woman with long-standing, retained intraabdominal glass shards who gave birth to a live infant with no complications: a case report. J Med Case Rep 2024 Feb 25;18(1):74.
    doi: 10.1186/s13256-024-04392-8pubmed: 38402220google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,127 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.