Effects of body position, imaging plane, and observer on computed tomographic measurements of the lumbosacral intervertebral foraminal area in dogs.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate effects of imaging plane, flexion and extension, patient weight, and observer on computed tomographic (CT) image measurements of the area of the lumbosacral (L7-S1) intervertebral foramen (LSIF) in dogs. SAMPLE 12 dog cadavers (2 were excluded because of foraminal stenosis). PROCEDURES In each cadaver, sagittal, sagittal oblique, transverse oblique, and double oblique CT images were obtained at 3 zones (entrance, middle, and exit zones) of the region of the lateral lumbar spinal canal that comprises the LSIF while the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) was positioned in flexion or extension. Barium-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate was used to fill the intervertebral foramina to aid boundary detection. Measurements of interest were obtained. RESULTS Among the dog cadavers, there was large variability in LSIF cross-sectional areas (range, 0.12 to 0.44 cm2; SD, 0.1 cm2) and in foraminal angles required to obtain a double oblique plane in LSJ extension (SD, 8 ° to 9 °). For LSIF area measurements in standard sagittal CT images, interobserver variability was 23% to 44% and intraobserver variability was 4% to 5%. Sagittal oblique images obtained during LSJ extension yielded smaller mean LSIF areas (0.30 cm2), compared with findings in sagittal images (0.37 to 0.52 cm2). The exit and middle zone areas were smaller than the entrance zone area in sagittal images obtained during LSJ extension. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Repeated measurements of the LSIF area in images obtained during LSJ extension may be unreliable as a result of interobserver variability and the effects of dog positioning and CT slice orientation.

[1]  N. Keuler,et al.  Computed tomographic imaging protocol for the canine cervical and lumbar spine. , 2009, Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association.

[2]  S. Werre,et al.  Effects of body position and clinical signs on L7-S1 intervertebral foraminal area and lumbosacral angle in dogs with lumbosacral disease as measured via computed tomography. , 2008, American journal of veterinary research.

[3]  M. Tezer,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR Imaging , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[4]  N. Suwankong,et al.  Review and retrospective analysis of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in 156 dogs treated by dorsal laminectomy , 2008, Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[5]  M. Roos,et al.  A follow-up study of neurologic and radiographic findings in working German Shepherd Dogs with and without degenerative lumbosacral stenosis. , 2007, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[6]  G. Voorhout,et al.  Determination of optimal window width and level for measurement of the canine pituitary gland height on computed tomographic images using a phantom. , 2007, Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association.

[7]  B. Goodman,et al.  MRI images at a 45-degree angle through the cervical neural foramina: a technique for improved visualization. , 2006, Pain physician.

[8]  John A. Hipp,et al.  Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Spine Foraminal Stenosis—A Surgeon's Perspective , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[9]  N. Sharp Chapter 10 – Lumbosacral disease , 2005 .

[10]  P. Shires,et al.  Endoscopic-assisted lumbosacral foraminotomy in the dog. , 2004, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[11]  C. Pfirrmann,et al.  MR image-based grading of lumbar nerve root compromise due to disk herniation: reliability study with surgical correlation. , 2004, Radiology.

[12]  I. Yang,et al.  A study of motor and sensory evoked potentials in chronic cauda equina compression of the dog , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[13]  C. Claussen,et al.  CT reconstruction technique in lumbar intraneuroforaminal disc herniation , 2004, Neuroradiology.

[14]  W. Glenn,et al.  Dimensions of the lumbar intervertebral foramina as determined from the sagittal plane magnetic resonance imaging scans of 95 normal subjects. , 2003, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[15]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Oblique Reformation in Cervical Spine Computed Tomography: A New Look at an Old Friend , 2003, Spine.

[16]  C. Vite,et al.  Association of cauda equina compression on magnetic resonance images and clinical signs in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis. , 2002, Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.

[17]  R. Pietrobon,et al.  Observer Variability in Assessing Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Severity on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Its Relation to Cross-Sectional Spinal Canal Area , 2002, Spine.

[18]  G. Werner,et al.  CT-Untersuchung des lumbosakralen überganges von Hunden in Extension und Flexion;Teil II: Weichteilfenster , 2002 .

[19]  A. Busato,et al.  Facet joint geometry and intervertebral disk degeneration in the L5-S1 region of the vertebral column in German Shepherd dogs. , 2002, American journal of veterinary research.

[20]  C. Banfield,et al.  Association between postoperative outcome and results of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in working dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis. , 2000, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[21]  M. Zanetti,et al.  Positional MR imaging of the lumbar spine: does it demonstrate nerve root compromise not visible at conventional MR imaging? , 2000, Radiology.

[22]  K. Inzana,et al.  Subclinical CT abnormalities in the lumbosacral spine of older large-breed dogs. , 2000, Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association.

[23]  L. Estkowski,et al.  Oblique MRI as a useful adjunct in evaluation of cervical foraminal impingement. , 1998, Journal of spinal disorders.

[24]  A Benini,et al.  Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. , 1998, Radiology.

[25]  V. Haughton,et al.  Anatomic Changes of the Spinal Canal and Intervertebral Foramen Associated With Flexion‐Extension Movement , 1996, Spine.

[26]  J. Wright,et al.  Computed tomographic morphometry of the lumbosacral spine of dogs. , 1995, American journal of veterinary research.

[27]  Jeryl C Jones,et al.  A REVIEW OF HIGH RESOLUTION COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND A PROPOSED TECHNIQUE FOR REGIONAL EXAMINATION OF THE CANINE LUMBOSACRAL SPINE , 1994 .

[28]  M. Ness Degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in the dog: A review of 30 cases , 1994 .

[29]  J. Evans,et al.  Lumbar Intervertebral Foramens: An in Vitro Study of Their Shape in Relation to Intervertebral Disc Pathology , 1991, Spine.

[30]  R. Delamarter,et al.  Experimental lumbar spinal stenosis. Analysis of the cortical evoked potentials, microvasculature, and histopathology. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  M. Resnick,et al.  Urologic changes after cauda equina compression in dogs. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[32]  J. Piérard MILLER'S GUIDE TO THE DISSECTION OF THE DOG. , 1989 .

[33]  M. Modic,et al.  Cervical radiculopathy: value of oblique MR imaging. , 1987, Radiology.

[34]  V. Haughton,et al.  Oblique plane MR imaging of the cervical spine. , 1986, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[35]  J. Sorenson,et al.  Factors affecting the measurement of size and CT number in computed tomography. , 1981, Investigative radiology.

[36]  H. Evans,et al.  Miller's Guide to the dissection of the dog , 1971 .