title: Comparisons of computed tomography, contrast enhanced computed tomography and standing low-field magnetic resonance imaging in horses with lameness localised to the foot. Part 1: anatomic visualisation scores.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To date, few reports exist comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for imaging of the equine distal limb, yet clinicians are required to decide which modality to use regularly.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To report and compare anatomic visualisation scores obtained for CT, contrast enhanced CT (CECT) and standing low-field MRI (LFMRI) in the equine foot.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Anatomic visualisation score discrepancies would exist between CT, CECT and LFMRI.
  
  
  METHODS
  Images of 22 lame horses (31 limbs) undergoing both CT and LFMRI of the foot were reviewed. When available, CECT images were reviewed. The deep digital flexor tendon (DDFT) was categorised into proximal to distal levels (A-D), structures were assigned visualisation scores (Grades 0-3) and technique comparisons were made using the paired marginal homogeneity test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Computed tomography and LFMRI had similar visibility scores for the navicular bone, middle phalanx, DDFT-B, collateral ligaments of the distal interphalangeal joint and collateral sesamoidean ligament of the navicular bone. The proximal and distal phalanx had lower visibility scores with LFMRI. The distal DDFT (C-D), distal sesamoidean impar ligament and synovial structures had higher scores with LFMRI. Contrast enhanced CT lowered DDFT and collateral sesamoidean ligament scores and raised distal interphalangeal synovium CT visualisation scores.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Visualisation scores differ depending on imaging technique and anatomic structure of interest. This information increases our understanding of the limitations of CT, CECT and LFMRI to visualise anatomy in clinical cases.
authors.affiliation: Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of California, CA, USA.
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Vallance
authors.forename: R J W
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Bell
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Spriet
authors.forename: P H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Kass
authors.forename: S M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Puchalski
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000494:pharmacology*; D005534:Foot Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology / Q000662:veterinary*; D006734:Horse Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology*; D006736:Horses; D007794:Lameness, Animal / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000662:veterinary*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000662:veterinary*
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media