Constance Bowkett-Pritchard, David M Bolt, Yu-Mei Chang, Dagmar Berner
{"title":"测量马足参数显示有限的协议之间的x线片和低场磁共振成像。","authors":"Constance Bowkett-Pritchard, David M Bolt, Yu-Mei Chang, Dagmar Berner","doi":"10.1111/evj.14536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Comparative cadaveric analytical study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main limitations: </strong>Small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11796,"journal":{"name":"Equine Veterinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Constance Bowkett-Pritchard, David M Bolt, Yu-Mei Chang, Dagmar Berner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/evj.14536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Comparative cadaveric analytical study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main limitations: </strong>Small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Equine Veterinary Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Equine Veterinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14536\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equine Veterinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14536","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:通常获得马足x线片来测量解剖构象参数。x线片和低场磁共振成像(MRI)之间测量的比较尚未得到广泛的探讨。目的:比较x线片和低场MRI对足部参数测量的影响,并评估蹄壁标记物对(MRI期间)蹄囊可视化和方便测量的影响。研究设计:比较尸体分析研究。方法:对9具马尸体前足进行x线摄影和MRI检查,有蹄壁标记和无蹄壁标记分别为x线摄影用铅条和MRI用马蹄浸水绷带。使用类内相关系数(ICC)计算观察者内信度和模态间一致性,95%置信区间(CI)和p。结果:除了远端真皮额叶测量外,观察者内可重复性总体良好。x线摄影和MRI测量之间的一致性有限。结果以RAD表示x线摄影所得结果,以T1、T2*或STIR表示相关MRI序列所得结果;如果使用了标记,则添加M。方正距离仅与x线摄影和T1测量具有良好的一致性;ICC 0.78 (CI 0.33-0.95 p = 0.004)。远端指骨旋转的模态间比较受观察者内重复性的限制。用标记物测量鞋底厚度和表皮鞋底厚度的结果吻合良好;鞋底厚度(RADm vs. T1m) ICC 0.81 [CI -0.04-0.96], p。结论:x线摄影和MRI测量之间的有限一致表明这些方式在马足评估中不可互换。蹄壁标记不利于脚的测量。
Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging.
Background: 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.
Objectives: 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.
Study design: 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.
Main limitations: 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.
期刊介绍:
Equine Veterinary Journal publishes evidence to improve clinical practice or expand scientific knowledge underpinning equine veterinary medicine. This unrivalled international scientific journal is published 6 times per year, containing peer-reviewed articles with original and potentially important findings. Contributions are received from sources worldwide.