FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Anatomia, histologia, embryologia2025; 55(1); e70073; doi: 10.1111/ahe.70073

Measuring Equine Hooves in Radiographs and Computed Tomography Images Reveals Unexpected Size Differences.

Abstract: In a previous study on hoof biometry, we found that mathematical correction of measuring results from radiographs did not lead to complete correspondence to computed tomography (CT) results. The present study investigates this finding by comparing 13 measures of six cadaveric equine digits collected with the following workflows: radiographs with 1 and 2 m focus-object distance (FOD) (Xray 1 m/2 m), computed tomography images in planes defined based on anatomical landmarks (CTw), simulated radiographs based on the tomography dataset (virtual 120-mm slabs, Xray Sim) and measurements based on slices and projections aided by three-dimensional reconstruction models of hooves and bones based on the tomography data set (AMIRA). Furthermore, Xray 1 m/2 m values were mathematically corrected using factors calculated for each hoof (Xray 1 m/2 m corr). Results of all methods correlated, but absolute values showed differences. Xray 1 m/2 m values were systematically higher, Xray Sim and AMIRA values were lower than CTw values. Increasing FOD and mathematical correction of Xray values led to approximation to CTw values. Among measures producing unexpected results and large differences between methods were palmar process height, medial and lateral (but not dorsal) hoof wall thickness, dorsal hoof wall length, weight-bearing length and heel/toe to plumbline. Explanations might be primarily different definitions of landmarks in different methods, but also contrast settings for displaying both bone and soft tissue contours. Therefore, when comparing the measuring results collected using different methods, it is advisable to analyse relative rather than absolute values.
© 2025 The Author(s). Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-12-15 PubMed ID: 41392775PubMed Central: PMC12703575DOI: 10.1111/ahe.70073Google 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.

Overview

  • This study compares measurements of equine hooves obtained via different imaging techniques to understand discrepancies in size measurements.
  • The research highlights that measurements from radiographs, even when mathematically corrected, do not perfectly match those from computed tomography (CT), revealing unexpected differences.

Background and Purpose

  • Previous research indicated that mathematically adjusting radiograph measurements did not fully align them with CT scan results for equine hoof size.
  • The current study aims to investigate these discrepancies by comparing multiple measurement methods applied to the same set of horse hooves.

Methods and Workflows Compared

  • The study examined six cadaveric equine digits and collected 13 different measurement parameters.
  • Measurement techniques included:
    • Radiographs with two focus-object distances (FODs): 1 meter and 2 meters (Xray 1m and Xray 2m).
    • Computed tomography images oriented based on anatomical landmarks (referred to as CTw).
    • Simulated radiographs generated virtually from the CT dataset, using 120-mm thick slabs (Xray Sim).
    • Three-dimensional models constructed from the CT data to evaluate slices and projections with aid from specialized software (AMIRA).
  • Additionally, radiograph measurements obtained at 1m and 2m were mathematically corrected using hoof-specific correction factors (Xray 1m/2m corr) to improve accuracy.

Key Findings

  • All measurement methods showed correlation, indicating they are related, but the absolute size values differed notably between methods.
  • The radiograph measurements (Xray 1m/2m) were consistently higher than those derived from CT images (CTw).
  • The simulated radiographs (Xray Sim) and 3D reconstruction-based measurements (AMIRA) tended to be lower than CTw values.
  • Increasing the FOD from 1m to 2m and applying mathematical corrections brought the radiograph measurements closer to CT measurements, but did not eliminate differences entirely.

Measurements with Largest Discrepancies

  • Some specific hoof measurements showed significant differences across methods, including:
    • Palmar process height (part of the coffin bone).
    • Medial and lateral hoof wall thickness—contrast to dorsal hoof wall thickness, which showed less difference.
    • Dorsal hoof wall length.
    • Weight-bearing length of the hoof.
    • Heel/toe distance relative to a plumbline (vertical reference line).

Possible Causes of Discrepancies

  • Differences in defining anatomical landmarks between measurement methods were likely a major factor affecting the results.
  • Contrast settings used to display bone contours versus soft tissue contours might have influenced measurement accuracy and consistency.

Recommendations and Implications

  • When interpreting and comparing equine hoof measurements obtained via different imaging modalities or workflows, focusing on relative measurements (e.g., ratios or changes over time) is more reliable than relying on absolute size values.
  • This approach helps mitigate the effect of systematic bias introduced by different imaging techniques and protocols.
  • The study underscores the complexity of accurately quantifying equine hoof dimensions and suggests a cautious approach in clinical or research settings using radiographic or CT data.

Cite This Article

APA
Sellke L, Ludewig E, Handschuh S, Witter K. (2025). Measuring Equine Hooves in Radiographs and Computed Tomography Images Reveals Unexpected Size Differences. Anat Histol Embryol, 55(1), e70073. https://doi.org/10.1111/ahe.70073

Publication

Anatomia, histologia, embryologia
ISSN: 1439-0264
NlmUniqueID: 7704218
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 55
Issue: 1
Pages: e70073
PII: e70073

Researcher Affiliations

Sellke, Lina
  • Department of Biological Sciences and Pathobiology, Unit of Morphology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ludewig, Eberhard
  • Diagnostic Imaging - Clinical Center of Small Animals, Clinical Department for Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Handschuh, Stephan
  • VetCore Facility for Research/Imaging Unit, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Witter, Kirsti
  • Department of Biological Sciences and Pathobiology, Unit of Morphology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / anatomy & histology
  • Hoof and Claw / anatomy & histology
  • Hoof and Claw / diagnostic imaging
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / veterinary
  • Cadaver
  • Radiography / veterinary
  • Imaging, Three-Dimensional / veterinary
  • Biometry

Grant Funding

  • H-291437/2019 / Hochschuljubiläumsstiftung der Stadt Wien

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 29 references
  1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. Lancet 327, no. 8476: 307–310.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8pubmed: 2868172google scholar: lookup
  2. Brunsting J, Dumoulin M, Oosterlinck M, Haspeslagh M, Lefère L, Pille F. Can the Hoof Be Shod Without Limiting the Heel Movement? A Comparative Study Between Barefoot, Shoeing With Conventional Shoes and a Split‐Toe Shoe. Veterinary Journal 246: 7–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.01.012pubmed: 30902192google scholar: lookup
  3. Buckle CE, Udawatta V, Straus CM. Now You See It, Now You Don't: Visual Illusions in Radiology. Radiographics 33, no. 7: 2087–2102.
    doi: 10.1148/rg.337125204pubmed: 24224600google scholar: lookup
  4. Burn JF, Brockington C. Quantification of Hoof Deformation Using Optical Motion Capture. Equine Veterinary Journal 33, no. S33: 50–53.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2001.tb05358.xpubmed: 11721568google scholar: lookup
  5. Carey S, Kandel S, Farrell C. Comparison of Conventional Chest X Ray With a Novel Projection Technique for Ultra‐Low Dose CT. Medical Physics 48, no. 6: 2809–2815.
    doi: 10.1002/mp.14142pubmed: 32181495google scholar: lookup
  6. Cavalcanti MGP, Rocha SS, Vannier MW. Craniofacial Measurements Based on 3D‐CT Volume Rendering: Implications for Clinical Applications. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 33, no. 3: 170–176.
    doi: 10.1259/dmfr/13603271pubmed: 15371317google scholar: lookup
  7. Cebula M, Nowak MD, Modlińska S. Impact of Window Computed Tomography (CT) Parameters on Measurement of Inflammatory Changes in Paranasal Sinuses. Polish Journal of Radiology 82: 567–570.
    doi: 10.12659/PJR.901939pmc: PMC5894057pubmed: 29662587google scholar: lookup
  8. Fatemitabar SA, Nikgoo A. Multichannel Computed Tomography Versus Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography: Linear Accuracy of In Vitro Measurements of the Maxilla for Implant Placement. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 25, no. 3: 499–505.
    pubmed: 20556248
  9. Gaspoz F, Monnin P, Petter D, Plé J, Ding S. Precision and Accuracy of Measurements on CT Scout View. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 46, no. 3: 309–316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2015.06.006pubmed: 31052138google scholar: lookup
  10. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman Analysis. Biochemia Medica 25, no. 2: 141–151.
    doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.015pmc: PMC4470095pubmed: 26110027google scholar: lookup
  11. Goulet C, Olive J, Rossier Y, Beauchamp G. Radiographic and Anatomic Characteristics of Dorsal Hoof Wall Layers in Nonlaminitic Horses. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 56, no. 6: 589–594.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12280pubmed: 26226838google scholar: lookup
  12. Grundmann INM, Drost WT, Zekas LJ. Quantitative Assessment of the Equine Hoof Using Digital Radiography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Equine Veterinary Journal 47, no. 5: 542–547.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12340pubmed: 25187085google scholar: lookup
  13. Kau S, Failing K, Staszyk C. Computed Tomography (CT)‐Assisted 3D Cephalometry in Horses: Interincisal Angulation of Clinical Crowns. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 434.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00434pmc: PMC7403475pubmed: 32851019google scholar: lookup
  14. Kruth JP, Bartscher M, Carmignato S, Schmitt R, De Chiffre L, Weckenmann A. Computed Tomography for Dimensional Metrology. CIRP Annals ‐ Manufacturing Technology 60, no. 2: 821–842.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2011.05.006google scholar: lookup
  15. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of Conventional and Cone Beam CT Synthesized Cephalograms. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 36, no. 5: 263–269.
    doi: 10.1259/dmfr/98032356pubmed: 17586852google scholar: lookup
  16. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A New Volumetric CT Machine for Dental Imaging Based on the Cone‐Beam Technique: Preliminary Results. European Radiology 8, no. 9: 1558–1564.
    doi: 10.1007/s003300050586pubmed: 9866761google scholar: lookup
  17. Nilsson T, Ahlqvist J, Johansson M, Isberg A. Virtual Reality for Simulation of Radiographic Projections: Validation of Projection Geometry. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 33, no. 1: 44–50.
    doi: 10.1259/dmfr/22722586pubmed: 15140822google scholar: lookup
  18. Rosskopf J, Kloth C, Dreyhaupt J, Braun M, Schmitz BL, Graeter T. Thin Slices and Maximum Intensity Projection Reconstructions Increase Sensitivity to Hyperdense Middle Cerebral Artery Sign in Acute Ischemic Stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases 49, no. 4: 437–441.
    doi: 10.1159/000509378pubmed: 32721960google scholar: lookup
  19. Sanfridsson J, Svahn G, Ryd L, Ahl TL, Sundén P, Jonsson K. Assessment of Image Post‐Processing and of Measuring Assistance Tools in Computed Radiography: Evaluation of the Weight‐Bearing Knee. Acta Radiologica 39, no. 6: 642–648.
    doi: 10.3109/02841859809175490pubmed: 9817035google scholar: lookup
  20. Sellke L, Patan-Zugaj B, Ludewig E, Cimrman R, Witter K. Comparison of Six Different Methods for Measuring the Equine Hoof and Recording of Its Three‐Dimensional Conformation. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 121: 104195.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104195pubmed: 36535437google scholar: lookup
  21. Sellke L, Patan-Zugaj B, Witter K. Nomenclature of Equine Hoof Measurements—A Systematic Literature Review. Pferdeheilkunde 36, no. 3: 238–251.
    doi: 10.21836/PEM20200306google scholar: lookup
  22. Snoeckx A, Cant J, Franck C. Lesion Measurement on a Combined All‐In‐One Window for Chest CT: Effect on Intra‐ and Interobserver Variability. Cancer Imaging 19: 78.
    doi: 10.1186/s40644-019-0262-0pmc: PMC6884847pubmed: 31783926google scholar: lookup
  23. Spolyar JL, Vasileff W, MacIntosh RB, Rune B. Image Corrected Cephalometric Analysis (ICCA): Design and Evaluation. Cleft Palate‐Craniofacial Journal 30, no. 6: 528–541.
    doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0528_iccaid_2.3.co_2pubmed: 8280730google scholar: lookup
  24. Stevens PM. Radiographic Distortion of Bones: A Marker Study. Orthopedics 12, no. 11: 1457–1463.
    doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19891101-11pubmed: 2587449google scholar: lookup
  25. Sun Z, Jansen S. Personalized 3D Printed Coronary Models in Coronary Stenting. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery 9, no. 8: 1356–1367.
    doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.06.21pmc: PMC6732059pubmed: 31559165google scholar: lookup
  26. Tjernström B, Jakobsson O, Pech P, Rehnberg L. Reliability of Radiological Measurements of the Distraction Gap During Leg Lengthening. Acta Radiologica 37, no. 2: 162–165.
    doi: 10.3109/02841859609173437pubmed: 8600954google scholar: lookup
  27. Vasconcellos ACRS, Maciel ADS, Rubira CMF, Rubira-Bullen IRF, Sarmento VA. Accuracy of Linear Measurement in Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering 4, no. 2: 79–88.
  28. Wechselberg K, Wessely J. Planimetrische Methode an Röntgenbildern kindlicher Hirnschädel mit Normwerten für das Kindesalter. Zeitschrift für Kinderheilkunde 114, no. 1: 39–53.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00446116pubmed: 4686268google scholar: lookup
  29. Wells TR, Landing BH, Padua EM. The Question of Parallax‐Effect on Radiographic Assessment of Short Trachea in Infants and Children. Pediatric Radiology 21, no. 7: 490–493.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02011719pubmed: 1771111google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,850 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.