FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1111/evj.14536

Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging.

Abstract: Equine foot radiographs are commonly obtained to measure anatomical conformation parameters. Comparison of measurements between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been extensively explored. Objective: To compare foot parameter measurements between radiographs and low-field MRI, and assess the effect of hoof wall markers on visualising the hoof capsule (during MRI) and facilitating measurements. Methods: Comparative cadaveric analytical study. Methods: Radiography and MRI of nine equine cadaver front feet were performed with and without hoof wall markers, which were lead strips for radiography and a water-soaked hoof bandage for MRI. Intra-observer reliability and inter-modality agreement were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p < 0.05. Results: Intra-observer repeatability was generally good, apart from distal dermal frontal measurements. There was limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements. Results are presented as RAD indicating those obtained with radiography and T1, T2* or STIR indicating those obtained with the relevant MRI sequence; m is added if a marker was used. Founder distance only showed good agreement for radiographic and T1 measurements with markers; ICC 0.78 (CI 0.33-0.95 p = 0.004). Inter-modality comparisons for distal phalanx rotation were limited by intraobserver repeatability. Good agreement was noted for sole thickness and epidermal sole thickness measurements with markers; sole thickness (RADm vs. T1m ICC 0.81 [CI -0.04-0.96], p < 0.001; RADm vs. T2*m ICC 0.86 [CI 0.51-0.97], p < 0.001; RADm vs. STIRm ICC 0.91 [CI 0.66-0.98], p < 0.001) and epidermal sole thickness (RADm vs. T1m ICC 0.88 [CI 0.55-0.97], p < 0.001; RADm vs. T2*m ICC 0.83 [CI 0.41-0.96], p = 0.002; RADm vs. STIRm ICC 0.80 [CI 0.31-0.95], p = 0.004). Radiographic measurements with and without markers often had good to excellent agreement; for some parameters, hoof wall markers were associated with reduced intra-observer repeatability. The water-soaked hoof bandage aided MRI hoof capsule visualisation; limitations included reduced repeatability and unattainable distal measurements. Conclusions: Small sample size. Conclusions: The limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements suggests these modalities are not interchangeable in equine foot assessment. Hoof wall markers do not benefit foot measurements.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-06-26 PubMed ID: 40574279DOI: 10.1111/evj.14536Google 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 examines the comparison between radiograph and low-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for measuring certain parameters of the equine foot. The study finds a limited agreement between the two methods and also concludes that hoof wall markers do not aid in foot measurements.

Research Objective

  1. The primary objective of this comparative analytical study was to compare measurements of equine foot parameters such as distal phalanx rotation, founder distance, and sole thickness, between radiographs and low-field MRI.
  2. The researchers also examined the role of hoof wall markers to aid in the visualization of the hoof capsule during MRI and facilitate measurement accuracy.

Methods Used

  1. Radiography and MRI of nine equine cadaver front feet were performed both with and without hoof wall markers. These markers were lead strips for radiography and a water-soaked hoof bandage for MRI.
  2. Statistical analysis was carried out to determine intra-observer reliability and inter-modality agreement using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

  1. Intra-observer repeatability was generally good, except for distal dermal frontal measurements which showed limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements.
  2. Founder distance measurements showed considerable agreement between radiographic and T1 MRI measurements when markers were used, with an ICC of 0.78.
  3. Inter-modality comparisons for the measurement of distal phalanx rotation were limited due to inconsistencies in intraobserver repeatability.
  4. Measurements for sole thickness and epidermal sole thickness showed good agreement between radiography and all modes of MRI when markers were used.
  5. The use of hoof wall markers was associated with reduced intra-observer repeatability for some parameters. Furthermore, the water-soaked hoof bandage used for MRI aided in visualizing the hoof capsule, but limitations including reduced repeatability and untenable distal measurements were observed.

Conclusions

  1. Despite the small sample size, the study concludes that there is a limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements in assessing equine foot parameters.
  2. The researchers suggest that these two methods cannot be interchangeable due to their limited agreement.
  3. Furthermore, the study reveals that hoof wall markers do not offer any significant advantage for foot measurements. Instead, they often reduce intra-observer repeatability, thus limiting their utility.

Cite This Article

APA
Bowkett-Pritchard C, Bolt DM, Chang YM, Berner D. (2025). Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14536

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Bowkett-Pritchard, Constance
  • Equine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
  • The Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital, University of Liverpool, Neston.
Bolt, David M
  • Equine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Chang, Yu-Mei
  • Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Berner, Dagmar
  • Equine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.

References

This article includes 22 references
  1. Arble JB, Mattoon JS, Drost WT, Weisbrode SE, Wassenaar PA, Pan X. Magnetic resonance imaging of the initial active stage of equine laminitis at 4.7 T. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009;50(1):3–12.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.01483.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Murray RC, Dyson SJ, Schramme MC, Branch M, Woods S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the equine digit with chronic laminitis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2003;44(6):609–617.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2003.tb00519.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Linford RL, O'Brien TR, Trout DR. Qualitative and morphometric radiographic findings in the distal phalanx and digital soft tissues of sound Thoroughbred racehorses. Am J Vet Res 1993;54(1):38–51.
  4. Grundmann INM, Drost WT, Zekas LJ, Belknap JK, Garabed RB, Weisbrode SE. Quantitative assessment of the equine hoof using digital radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Equine Vet J 2015;47(5):542–547.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12340google scholar: lookup
  5. Kummer M, Geyer H, Imboden I, Auer J, Lischer C. The effect of hoof trimming on radiographic measurements of the front feet of normal Warmblood horses. Vet J 2006;172(1):58–66.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2005.03.008google scholar: lookup
  6. Cripps PJ, Eustace RA. Radiological measurements from the feet of normal horses with relevance to laminitis. Equine Vet J 1999;31(5):427–432.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03844.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Dyson S, Murray R, Schramme M, Branch M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the equine foot: 15 horses. Equine Vet J 2003;35(1):18–26.
    doi: 10.2746/042516403775467531google scholar: lookup
  8. Bolt DM, Carrier ME, Sheridan KS, Manso‐Diaz G, Berner D. Measurement accuracy of foot conformation parameters on low‐field magnetic resonance images in horses. J Equine Vet Sci 2022;112:103894.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.103894google scholar: lookup
  9. Rowan C, Puggioni A, Kearney C, Skelly C. The effect of radiopaque markers to delineate the dorsal hoof wall on image quality in digital radiography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2016;57(6):646–669.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12426google scholar: lookup
  10. Pownder SL, Caserto BG, Bowker RM, Lin B, Potter HG, Koff MF. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and histological hoof wall assessment of 3‐year‐old quarter horses. Equine Vet J 2020;52(3):435–440.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13188google scholar: lookup
  11. Mair TS, Linnenkohl W. Low‐field magnetic resonance imaging of keratomas of the hoof wall. Equine Vet Educ 2012;24(9):459–468.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00367.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  12. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012google scholar: lookup
  13. Larsen CD, Wilkinson TE, Roberts GD, Guess SC, Mattoon JS, Sanz MG. Radiographic analysis of the dorsal hoof wall thickness in clinically normal draft horses. Am J Vet Res 2024;85(1).
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.23.06.0145google scholar: lookup
  14. Byrne CA, Marshall JF, Voute LC. Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot is significantly influenced by acquisition system. Equine Vet J 2021;53(3):469–480.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13330google scholar: lookup
  15. 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(1):9–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.11.00google scholar: lookup
  16. Bolas N. Basic principles. In: Murray RC, editor. Equine MRI. 1st ed. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2011. p. 3–37.
  17. Obitayo SM, Nagy A. Validation of computed tomographic measurements of the dorsal hoof wall thickness: comparison with radiographic and gross anatomical measurements. Equine Vet J 2024;56(S59):29–30.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14184google scholar: lookup
  18. Marques JP, Simonis FFJ, Webb AG. Low‐field MRI: an MR physics perspective. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49(6):1528–1542.
    doi: 10.1002/jmri.26637google scholar: lookup
  19. Thieme K, Ehrle A, Lischer C. Radiographic measurements of the hooves of normal ponies. Vet J 2015;206(3):332–337.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.10.005google scholar: lookup
  20. Sherlock C, Parks A. Radiographic and radiological assessment of laminitis. Equine Vet Educ 2013;25(10):524–535.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12065google scholar: lookup
  21. Alexander RG, Yazdanie F, Waite S, Chaudhry ZA, Kolla S, Macknik SL. Visual illusions in radiology: untrue perceptions in medical images and their implications for diagnostic accuracy. Front Neurosci 2021;15:629469.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.629469google scholar: lookup
  22. Joostens Z, Evrard L, Busoni V. Unipodal stance influences radiographic evaluation of foot balance in horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2019;60(3):273–279.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12729google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.