4.1 Article

Correlation of helical and incremental high-resolution thin-section computed tomographic imaging with histomorphometric quantitative evaluation of lungs in dogs

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
Volume 64, Issue 7, Pages 935-944

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.935

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To develop protocols for helical computed tomography (CT) and axial high-resolution CT (HRCT) of lungs and correlate densitometric CT values with morphometric and histologic data for normal pulmonary tissue in dogs. Animals-8 healthy adult dogs. Procedure-2 dogs were used to establish a protocol for helical CT and HRCT of lungs. Six dogs were used to acquire densitometric CT data regarding normal lungs. After the dogs were euthanatized, their lungs were fixed and sampled for morphometric and histologic evaluation. Four CT acquisitions were compared by means of paired t tests. Results-For normal lung tissue of dogs, mean densitometric CT value obtained during helical CT scans reconstructed in a sharp algorithm was -846 Hounsfield units. Values obtained via helical CT or HRCT acquisitions and reconstructed with sharp or standard algorithms did not differ significantly. Morphometric analysis was used to determine the proportion of lung parenchymal (82%) and non-parenchymal tissue (18%). Alveolar size, estimated by mean linear intercept, was approximately 172 mum, and alveolar surface area-to-volume ratio was 0.024. to 0.026 mum(-1). Histologic evaluation confirmed the presence of normal lung tissue. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Correlation of densitometric CT data with morphometric and histologic findings and the establishment of helical CT and HRCT protocols were attained; clinical use of this information may facilitate investigation of pulmonary disease in dogs. Sharp helical CT acquisitions were preferred because of better lung parenchyma detail and rapid image acquisitions, compared with HRCT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available