FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Radiol Ultrasound / Equine Standing Multidetector Computed Tomography of the Dis...
Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association2025; 66(4); e70049; doi: 10.1111/vru.70049

Equine Standing Multidetector Computed Tomography of the Distal Thoracic Limb and Tarsus Has a Lower Cumulative Radiation Dose than Digital Radiography.

Abstract: Recent technological advancements in CT have improved the ability to scan standing sedated horses. However, the impact of radiation exposure on veterinary staff while scanning the extremities of standing horses using this technique, compared with digital radiography (DR), remains unknown. This study compares the radiation exposure of imaging technicians assisting with multidetector CT (MDCT) and DR of the distal thoracic limb and tarsus in standing horses. Personal dose equivalent was measured on four body locations: thyroid gland, gonads, hand, and feet. Images of the distal thoracic limb (n = 12) and tarsus (n = 12) were obtained from 24 Warmblood horses using DR and MDCT. The DR included four views of the front fetlock (dorsopalmar, lateromedial, dorso45lateral-palmaromedial oblique, and dorso45medial-palmarolateral oblique), three views of the front foot (dorsopalmar, lateromedial and dorso65proximal-palmarodistal oblique) and four views of the tarsus (dorsoplantar, lateromedial, dorso45lateral-plantaromedial oblique and dorso45medial-planterolateral oblique). The MDCT scans included the distal metacarpus to the foot and the tarsus. Noninferiority testing showed lower radiation exposure to the imaging technician during MDCT of the distal thoracic limb and tarsus compared with DR, measured at the thyroid gland, hand, and feet. The radiation exposure to the gonads during MDCT of the thoracic limb was significantly higher than with DR. Nevertheless, the lower cumulative radiation exposure for the assisting imaging technician during MDCT compared with DR suggests that the tested MDCT setup enables advanced imaging of the distal limb in standing sedated horses, offering both reduced radiation exposure and avoiding the patient-related risks of general anesthesia.
© 2025 The Author(s). Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Radiology.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-05-27 PubMed ID: 40420323PubMed Central: PMC12106850DOI: 10.1111/vru.70049Google 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
  • Comparative Study

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 study reveals that computed tomography (CT) scans used on standing horses for the distal thoracic limb and tarsus resulted in lesser overall radiation exposure for the imaging technicians compared to traditional digital radiography (DR). However, the radiation exposure to technicians’ gonads was higher during the CT scans compared to the DR method.

Study objective and methodology

  • The study aimed to understand the radiation exposure on veterinary staff when carrying out CT scans (using multidetector CT or MDCT) and digital radiography (DR) on a standing horse’s extremities. Researchers measured radiation exposure at four body areas – thyroid gland, gonads, hand, and feet.
  • An experiment was conducted using 24 Warmblood horses, where the distal thoracic limb (n = 12) and tarsus (n = 12) were imaged using DR and MDCT. DR included different views of the front fetlock, front foot, and the tarsus. The MDCT scans covered, the distal metacarpus to the foot, and the tarsus.

Key findings

  • The research demonstrated that when using MDCT for imaging the distal thoracic limb and tarsus of a standing sedated horse, the imaging technician was subjected to lower levels of radiation at the thyroid gland, hand, and feet, compared to DR.
  • However, radiation exposure to the gonads was noted to be higher during MDCT imaging. Still, the overall cumulative radiation exposure for the technician was lower in MDCT than in DR.
  • The lower overall radiation exposure and the capability to carry out the imaging on standing, sedated horses reduces the need for general anesthesia and related patient risks.

Implications

  • The research implies that the chosen MDCT setup allows advanced imaging of the distal limb in standing sedated horses. This setup not only reduces radiation exposure but also nullifies patient-related risks associated with general anesthesia.
  • While the method provides a safer alternative in terms of radiation exposure, further investigations will be required to address the higher radiation exposure at the gonads to ensure complete safety for the technicians.

Cite This Article

APA
Gaida JL, Steinberg T, Stieger-Vanegas SM, Merle R, Lischer CJ. (2025). Equine Standing Multidetector Computed Tomography of the Distal Thoracic Limb and Tarsus Has a Lower Cumulative Radiation Dose than Digital Radiography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound, 66(4), e70049. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.70049

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: 66
Issue: 4
Pages: e70049

Researcher Affiliations

Gaida, Julia L
  • Tierklinik Luesche GmbH, Bakum, Germany.
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
  • Clinic for Horses, General Surgery and Radiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Steinberg, Tim
  • Tierklinik Luesche GmbH, Bakum, Germany.
Stieger-Vanegas, Susanne M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
Merle, Roswitha
  • Clinic for Horses, General Surgery and Radiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lischer, Christoph J
  • Clinic for Horses, General Surgery and Radiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Radiation Dosage
  • Multidetector Computed Tomography / veterinary
  • Multidetector Computed Tomography / methods
  • Tarsus, Animal / diagnostic imaging
  • Female
  • Male
  • Forelimb / diagnostic imaging
  • Radiographic Image Enhancement / methods

Conflict of Interest Statement

Tierklinik Luesche GmbH, Germany provided the technical equipment and the patients for the study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Epperly E, Whitty J A. Equine Imaging: Computed Tomography Interpretation. The Veterinary Clinics of North America Equine Practice 36 (2020): 527–543.
    pubmed: 33067100
  2. Kraft S L, Gavin P. Physical Principles and Technical Considerations for Equine Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 17 (2001): 115–130.
    pubmed: 11488039
  3. Johnson S A, Valdés‐Martínez A, Turk P J. Longitudinal Tendon Healing Assessed With Multi‐Modality Advanced Imaging and Tissue Analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal 54 (2022): 766–781.
    pubmed: 34101888
  4. Suh C H, Yun S J, Jin W, Lee S H, Park S o Y, Ryu C‐W. Diagnostic Performance of Dual‐Energy CT for the Detection of Bone Marrow Oedema: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. European Radiology 28 (2018): 4182–4194.
    pubmed: 29679212
  5. Perrin R A R, Launois M T, Brogniez L. The Use of Computed Tomography to Assist Orthopaedic Surgery in 86 Horses. Equine Veterinary Education 23 (2002–2010): 306–313.
  6. Riggs C. Computed Tomography in Equine Orthopaedics–the Next Great Leap?. Equine Veterinary Education 31 (2019): 151–153.
  7. Desbrosse F G, Vandeweerd J‐M E F, Perrin R A R. A Technique for Computed Tomography (CT) of the Foot in the Standing Horse. Equine Veterinary Education 20 (2008): 93–98.
  8. Laurenza C, Ansart L, Portier K. Risk Factors of Anesthesia‐related Mortality and Morbidity in One Equine Hospital: A Retrospective Study on 1,161 Cases Undergoing Elective or Emergency Surgeries. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6 (2020): 514.
    pmc: PMC6990105pubmed: 32039253
  9. Mathee N, Robert M, Higgerty S M. Computed Tomographic Evaluation of the Distal Limb in the Standing Sedated Horse: Technique, Imaging Diagnoses, Feasibility, and Artifacts. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 64 (2023): 243–252.
    pubmed: 36373276
  10. Koch C, Pauwels F, Schweizer‐Gorgas D. Technical Setup and Case Illustrations of Orthopaedic Cone Beam Computed Tomography in the Standing Horse. Equine Veterinary Education 33 (2021): 255–262.
  11. Pauwels F E, Van Der Vekens E, Christan Y, Koch C, Schweizer D. Feasibility, Indications, and Radiographically Confirmed Diagnoses of Standing Extremity Cone Beam Computed Tomography in the Horse. Veterinary Surgery 50 (2021): 365–374.
    pubmed: 33421172
  12. Brounts S H, Henry T, Lund J R, Whitton R C, Ergun D L, Muir P. Use of a Novel Helical Fan Beam Imaging System for Computed Tomography of the Head and Neck in Sedated Standing Horses: 120 Cases. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 260 (2019–2020): 1361–1368.
    pubmed: 35943950
  13. Dakin S G, Lam R, Rees E, Mumby C, West C, Weller R. Technical Setup and Radiation Exposure for Standing Computed Tomography of the Equine Head. Equine Veterinary Education 26 (2014): 208–215.
  14. Stieger‐Vanegas S M, Hanna A L. The Role of Computed Tomography in Imaging Non‐Neurologic Disorders of the Head in Equine Patients. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 9 (2022).
    pmc: PMC8936190pubmed: 35321060
  15. Bierau J, Cruz A M, Koch C. Visualization of Anatomical Structures in the Fetlock Region of the Horse Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Comparison With Conventional Multidetector Computed Tomography. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 10 (2023).
    pmc: PMC10802162pubmed: 38260210
  16. Dugdale A H, Taylor P M. Equine Anaesthesia‐associated Mortality: Where Are We Now?. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 43 (2016): 242–255.
    pubmed: 26970940
  17. BMUV: Strahlenschutz in der Tierheilkunde, in Strahlenschutzes RM‐bAd (ed), Vol 2. Richtlinie zur Strahlenschutzverordnung und zur Röntgenverordnung, Bundesministerium FüR Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit, 2014, p 41.
  18. Steinberg M. K. Ermittlung Der Strahlenexposition Des Veterinärmedizinischen Personals Bei Routinemäßigen Röntgenuntersuchungen in Der Pferdepraxis Mit Hilfe Elektronischer Personendosimeter (2008).
  19. Veitch K E, Szczykutowicz T P, Brounts S H. Radiation Exposure During Simulated Equine Head and Limb Fan Beam Standing Computed Tomography Appears Safe for Personnel Using Lead Shielding. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 1 (2024): 1–8.
    pubmed: 39305927
  20. Morishima Y, Chida K, Katahira Y. The Effectiveness of Additional Lead‐Shielding Drape and Low Pulse Rate Fluoroscopy in Protecting Staff From Scatter Radiation During Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT). Japanese Journal of Radiology 37 (2019): 95–101.
    pubmed: 30324249
  21. Rajaraman P, Doody M M, Yu C L. Journal Club: Cancer Risks in US Radiologic Technologists Working With Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1994–2008. American Journal of Roentgenology 206 (2016): 1101–1109.
    pmc: PMC10986158pubmed: 26998721
  22. Desouky O, Ding N, Zhou G. Targeted and Non‐Targeted Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences 8 (2015): 247–254.
  23. Athwal G S, Bueno R A, Wolfe S W. Radiation Exposure in Hand Surgery: Mini versus Standard C‐arm. The Journal of Hand Surgery 30 (2005): 1310–1316.
    pubmed: 16344194
  24. Muirhead C R, O'hagan J A, Haylock R G E. Mortality and Cancer Incidence Following Occupational Radiation Exposure: Third Analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. British Journal of Cancer 100 (2009): 206–212.
    pmc: PMC2634664pubmed: 19127272
  25. Richardson D B, Cardis E, Daniels R D. Risk of Cancer From Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). Bmj 351 (2015).
    pmc: PMC4612459pubmed: 26487649
  26. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 103). Annals of the ICRP 37, no. 2–4 2007: 1–332.
    pubmed: 18082557
  27. Bf J. Gesetz Zum Schutz Vor Der Schädlichen Wirkung Ionisierender Strahlung, § 78 Grenzwerte Für Beruflich Exponierte Personen Strahlenschutzgesetz—StrlSchG.
  28. Della Vecchia E, Modenese A, Loney T. Risk of Cataract in Health Care Workers Exposed to Ionizing Radiation: A Systematic Review. La Medicina Del Lavoro 111 (2020): 269.
    pmc: PMC7809955pubmed: 32869764
  29. Ackerman N, Spencer C P, Hager D A, Poulos P W. Radiation Exposure During Equine Radiography. Veterinary Radiology 29 (1988): 198–201.
  30. Hupe O, Ankerhold U. Dose to Persons Assisting Voluntarily During X‐ray Examinations of Large Animals. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 128 (2008): 274–278.
    pubmed: 17848384
  31. Tyson R, Smiley D C, Pleasant R S. Estimated Operator Exposure for Hand Holding Portable X‐ray Units During Imaging of the Equine Distal Extremity. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 52 (2011): 121–124.
    pubmed: 21388461
  32. Nassef M, Kinsara A. Occupational Radiation Dose for Medical Workers at a University Hospital. Journal of Taibah University for Science 11 (2017): 1259–1266.
  33. Mageed M. Standing Computed Tomography of the Equine Limb Using a Multi‐slice Helical Scanner: Technique and Feasibility Study. Equine Veterinary Education 2020.
  34. Butler J A, Colles C M, Dyson S J. Clinical Radiology of the Horse. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
  35. Brenner D J, Hall E J. Computed Tomography–an Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure. New England Journal of Medicine 357 (2007): 2277–2284.
    pubmed: 18046031
  36. Baker S I, Kamboj S. Applying ALARA Principles in the Design of New Radiological Facilities. Health Physics 122 (2022): 452–462.
    pubmed: 35100213
  37. Pitteloud N, Gamulin A, Barea C, Damet J, Racloz G, Sans‐Merce M. Radiation Exposure Using the O‐arm® Surgical Imaging System. European Spine Journal 26 (2017): 651–657.
    pubmed: 27652675
  38. Kaplan D J, Patel J N, Liporace F A, Yoon R S. Intraoperative Radiation Safety in Orthopaedics: A Review of the ALARA (as Low as Reasonably Achievable) Principle. Patient Safety in Surgery 10 (2016): 1–7.
    pmc: PMC5154084pubmed: 27999617
  39. Davies T, Skelly C, Puggioni A. Standing CT of the Equine Head: Reducing Radiation Dose Maintains Image Quality. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 61 (2020): 137–146.
    pubmed: 31823453
  40. Nottmeier E W, Bowman C, Nelson K L. Surgeon Radiation Exposure in Cone Beam Computed Tomography‐Based, Image‐Guided Spinal Surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 8 (2012): 196–200.
    pubmed: 22114012
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.