The diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography in dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images of the skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma (MFT). Study Design Prospective study. Animals Dogs (n=9) and 15 cats with MFT. Methods CT-scans and skull radiographs (4 standard projections) for each animal were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system for the ability to identify 26 predefined, clinically relevant anatomic features (Part 1), and 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries (Part 2). For Part 1, mean scores for each anatomic feature were recorded for every view and imaging modality. For Part 2, studies were evaluated for the frequency of cases where each predetermined traumatic injury was identified. Results Part 1: On radiographs it was easy to identify 17 of 26 anatomic features whereas 6 features were very difficult or impossible to identify on any view. All structures were considered easy or very easy to identify on CT. Scores for CT were lower than radiographs for evaluating dental occlusion and the integrity of the mandibular body. Part 2: CT scans demonstrated 1.6 times more maxillofacial injuries for dogs and 2.0 times more for cats than conventional radiographs. The average number of MFT injuries per animal by radiographs and CT-scan was 4.8 and 7.6 in dogs, and 3.8 and 7.7 in cats, respectively. Conclusion CT is superior to conventional skull radiography for identification of anatomic structures and traumatic injuries in dogs and cats. Skull radiography is useful for visualizing the mandibular body and dental occlusion. Clinical Relevance CT allows for accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning of MFT in dogs and cats.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)294-299
Number of pages6
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Volume37
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

computed tomography
Cats
Tomography
Dogs
cats
dogs
Wounds and Injuries
Skull
skull
Maxillofacial Injuries
Dental Occlusion
radiography
Radiography
teeth
animals
prospective studies
planning
experimental design
image analysis
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

@article{ad03a681a56b49c8a775a41f8cd49aff,
title = "The diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography in dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma",
abstract = "Objective To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images of the skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma (MFT). Study Design Prospective study. Animals Dogs (n=9) and 15 cats with MFT. Methods CT-scans and skull radiographs (4 standard projections) for each animal were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system for the ability to identify 26 predefined, clinically relevant anatomic features (Part 1), and 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries (Part 2). For Part 1, mean scores for each anatomic feature were recorded for every view and imaging modality. For Part 2, studies were evaluated for the frequency of cases where each predetermined traumatic injury was identified. Results Part 1: On radiographs it was easy to identify 17 of 26 anatomic features whereas 6 features were very difficult or impossible to identify on any view. All structures were considered easy or very easy to identify on CT. Scores for CT were lower than radiographs for evaluating dental occlusion and the integrity of the mandibular body. Part 2: CT scans demonstrated 1.6 times more maxillofacial injuries for dogs and 2.0 times more for cats than conventional radiographs. The average number of MFT injuries per animal by radiographs and CT-scan was 4.8 and 7.6 in dogs, and 3.8 and 7.7 in cats, respectively. Conclusion CT is superior to conventional skull radiography for identification of anatomic structures and traumatic injuries in dogs and cats. Skull radiography is useful for visualizing the mandibular body and dental occlusion. Clinical Relevance CT allows for accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning of MFT in dogs and cats.",
author = "Yoav Bar-Am and Pollard, {Rachel E} and Kass, {Philip H} and Verstraete, {Frank J}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00380.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "294--299",
journal = "Veterinary Surgery",
issn = "0161-3499",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography in dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma

AU - Bar-Am, Yoav

AU - Pollard, Rachel E

AU - Kass, Philip H

AU - Verstraete, Frank J

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Objective To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images of the skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma (MFT). Study Design Prospective study. Animals Dogs (n=9) and 15 cats with MFT. Methods CT-scans and skull radiographs (4 standard projections) for each animal were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system for the ability to identify 26 predefined, clinically relevant anatomic features (Part 1), and 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries (Part 2). For Part 1, mean scores for each anatomic feature were recorded for every view and imaging modality. For Part 2, studies were evaluated for the frequency of cases where each predetermined traumatic injury was identified. Results Part 1: On radiographs it was easy to identify 17 of 26 anatomic features whereas 6 features were very difficult or impossible to identify on any view. All structures were considered easy or very easy to identify on CT. Scores for CT were lower than radiographs for evaluating dental occlusion and the integrity of the mandibular body. Part 2: CT scans demonstrated 1.6 times more maxillofacial injuries for dogs and 2.0 times more for cats than conventional radiographs. The average number of MFT injuries per animal by radiographs and CT-scan was 4.8 and 7.6 in dogs, and 3.8 and 7.7 in cats, respectively. Conclusion CT is superior to conventional skull radiography for identification of anatomic structures and traumatic injuries in dogs and cats. Skull radiography is useful for visualizing the mandibular body and dental occlusion. Clinical Relevance CT allows for accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning of MFT in dogs and cats.

AB - Objective To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images of the skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma (MFT). Study Design Prospective study. Animals Dogs (n=9) and 15 cats with MFT. Methods CT-scans and skull radiographs (4 standard projections) for each animal were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system for the ability to identify 26 predefined, clinically relevant anatomic features (Part 1), and 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries (Part 2). For Part 1, mean scores for each anatomic feature were recorded for every view and imaging modality. For Part 2, studies were evaluated for the frequency of cases where each predetermined traumatic injury was identified. Results Part 1: On radiographs it was easy to identify 17 of 26 anatomic features whereas 6 features were very difficult or impossible to identify on any view. All structures were considered easy or very easy to identify on CT. Scores for CT were lower than radiographs for evaluating dental occlusion and the integrity of the mandibular body. Part 2: CT scans demonstrated 1.6 times more maxillofacial injuries for dogs and 2.0 times more for cats than conventional radiographs. The average number of MFT injuries per animal by radiographs and CT-scan was 4.8 and 7.6 in dogs, and 3.8 and 7.7 in cats, respectively. Conclusion CT is superior to conventional skull radiography for identification of anatomic structures and traumatic injuries in dogs and cats. Skull radiography is useful for visualizing the mandibular body and dental occlusion. Clinical Relevance CT allows for accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning of MFT in dogs and cats.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41749083276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41749083276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00380.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00380.x

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 294

EP - 299

JO - Veterinary Surgery

JF - Veterinary Surgery

SN - 0161-3499

IS - 3

ER -