4.2 Article

Radiographic, Computed Tomographic, and Arthroscopic Findings in Labrador Retrievers With Medial Coronoid Disease

Journal

VETERINARY SURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 511-520

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12291.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo describe the radiographic, computed tomographic (CT), and arthroscopic findings in different age groups of Labrador Retrievers diagnosed with medial coronoid disease (MCD), and to compare the ulnar subtrochlear sclerosis (STS) observed on radiographs with the ratio between the mean attenuation of the ulnar subtrochlear bone and the mean attenuation of the cortical bone measured on CT. Study DesignProspective clinical study. AnimalsDogs (n=31; 31 elbow joints) and 6 healthy Labrador Retrievers (6 elbow joints). MethodsRadiographic, CT, and intraoperative arthroscopic images (2008-2012) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed for the descriptive study to evaluate the difference in findings between age groups and to investigate the correlation between radiographic and CT evaluated ulnar STS. ResultsUlnar STS (87.6%) was the most common radiographic findings in dogs 12 months and blurring of the cranial edge of the medial coronoid process (MCP; 66.7%) was the most common radiographic findings in dogs >12 months. MCP fragmentation was the most common CT finding in both age groups (93.8% [12 months]; 66.7% [>12 months]). A displaced fragment (68.8%) was the most common arthroscopic finding in dogs 12 months whereas osteochondromalacia (53.3%) was the most common finding in dogs >12 months. Sensitivity of radiography in detecting MCD was 93.8% (12 months) and 73.3% (>12 months) and for CT was 93.8% (12 months) and 66.7% (>12 months). Radiographic evaluated ulnar STS was strongly correlated with CT evaluated ulnar STS. ConclusionWide ranges of radiographic, CT, and arthroscopic findings in Labrador Retrievers diagnosed with medial coronoid disease were identified.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available