F. H. David (1, 2), J. Grierson (1, 3), C. R. Lamb (1)
(1) Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK; (2) Current address: Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA; (3) Current address: Anderson Sturgess Veterinary Specialists, The Granary, Bunstead Barns, Hursley, Winchester, Hampshire, UK
Magnetic Resonance, dog, cruciate ligament, stifle, susceptibility artefacts
Background: Magnetic resonance (MR) images of the postoperative canine stifle are adversely affected by susceptibility artefacts associated with metallic implants. Objectives: To determine empirically to what extent susceptibility artefacts could be reduced by modifications to MR technique. Methods: Three cadaveric limbs with a tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO), tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA), or extra-capsular stabilization (ECS) implant, respectively, were imaged at 1.5T. Series of proton density and T2-weighted images were acquired with different combinations of frequency-encoding gradient (FEG) direction and polarity, stifle flexion or extension, echo spacing (ES), and readout bandwidth (ROBW), and ranked. The highest rank (a rank of 1) corresponded to the smallest artefact. Results: Image ranking was affected by FEG polarity (p = 0.005), stifle flexion (p = 0.01), and ROBW (p = 0.0001). For TPLO and TTA implants, the highest ranked images were obtained with the stifle flexed, lateromedial FEG, and medial polarity for dorsal images, and craniocaudal FEG and caudal polarity for sagittal images. For the ECS implant, the highest ranked images were obtained with the stifle extended, a proximodistal FEG and proximal polarity for dorsal images, and craniocaudal FEG and cranial polarity for sagittal images. Clinical significance: Susceptibility artefacts in MR images of postoperative canine stifles do not preclude clinical evaluation of joints with ECS or TTA implants.
N. M. Kipfer1; S. Tepic1; D. M. Damur1; T. Guerrero1; M. Hässig2; P. M. Montavon1
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008 21 5: 385-390
E. Kulendra1, K. Lee2, S. Schoeniger3, A. P. Moores1,3
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008 21 2: 152-155
B. Keeley1, M. Glyde2, S. Guerin3, R. Doyle4
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007 20 3: 198-203
In the issue of VCOT 1/2015, C. Stalin provides an overview of the various techniques which are...
Even with the use of minimally invasive surgery and osteosynthesis, there are still many ...
Diagnostic anaesthetic techniques are well-established and are routinely used to localize the...