Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-06-0072
Magnetic resonance imaging of plantar soft tissue structures of the tarsus and proximal metatarsus in foals and adult horses
Publication History
Received
07 June 2012
Accepted
23 March 2012
Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)
Summary
Objectives: The object of this study was to describe previously defined soft tissue structures by using spin and gradient sequences in a 0.5 Tesla magnetic resonance system in order to improve the characterisation of tendon and ligaments at the plantar region of the equine tarsus and metatarsus while considering possible age-related variations.
Methods: Cadaveric hindlimbs from twenty-two Warmblood horses with an age range from one month to twenty-five years were examined in spin and gradient echoes. The proximal suspensory ligament from six limbs was dissected to assign the signal intensities histologically. For statistical analysis, horses were divided into two groups (≤3 years and >3 years) for evaluating signal intensity and homogeneity of the plantar tendons and ligaments.
Results: Focal increase of the signal intensity within the deep digital flexor tendon was significantly more present in horses older than three years. Signal alterations of the long plantar ligament were seen without a significant dependency to age. The accessory ligament of the deep digital flexor tendon could not be visualized on all images within the region of interest. The morphology of the proximal suspensory ligament was not affected by age-related changes.
Clinical relevance: Spin and gradient echoes in MRI were suitable to identify and assess soft tissue structures at the plantar aspect of the equine tarsus and proximal metatarsus. Age-related appearance must be considered when interpreting magnetic resonance images.
-
References
- 1 Dik KJ, Leitch M. Soft tissue injuries of the tarsus. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1995; 11: 235-247.
- 2 Bertone AL. The metacarpus and metatarsus. In: Stashak TS. editor. Adam`s Lameness in Horses. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Wilkins; 2011. p. 621-659.
- 3 Ross MW, Genovese RL. The soft tissue. In: Ross MW, Dyson SJ. editors. Diagnosis and Management of Lameness in the Horse. St. Louis: WB Saunders; 2003. p. 616-672.
- 4 Dyson S. Diagnosis and management of common suspensory lesions in the forelimbs and hindlimbs of sport horses. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2007; 6: 179-188.
- 5 Dyson S. Proximal suspensory desmitis in the hindlimb: 42 cases. Br vet J 1994; 150: 279-291.
- 6 Dik KJ. Ultrasonography of the equine tarsus. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1993; 34: 36-43.
- 7 Kirchberger R. Imaging artefacts in diagnostic ultrasound - A review. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1995; 35: 457-461.
- 8 Dyson S. Proximal metacarpal and metatarsal pa. In: a diagnostic challenge. Equine vet Educ 2003; 15: 134-138.
- 9 Werby NM. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of soft tissue and osseous injuries in the horse. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2004; 3: 389-398.
- 10 Crass JR, Genovese RL, Render JA. et al. Magnetic resonance, ultrasound and histopathologic correlation of acute and healing equine tendon injuries. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992; 33: 206-216.
- 11 Zubrod CJ, Barrett MF. Magnetic resonance imaging of tendon and ligament injuries. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2007; 6: 217-229.
- 12 Labens R, Schramme MC, Robertson IR. et al. Clinical, magnetic resonance, and sonographic imaging findings in horses with proximal plantar metatarsal pain. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010; 51: 11-18.
- 13 Brokken MT, Schneider RK, Sampson SN. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging features of proximal metacarpal and metatarsal injuries in the horse. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007; 48: 507-517.
- 14 Brokken M, Tucker R, Murray R. Section C: Pathology. The Metacarpal/Metatarsal Region. In: Murray RC. editor. Equine MRI. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley; 2011. p. 361-384.
- 15 Dyson S. Section C. The Distal Tarsal Region. In: Murray RC. editor. Equine MRI. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley; 2011. p. 405-420.
- 16 Murray R, Werby N, Audigié F. et al. Section C. The Proximal Tarsal Region. In: Murray RC. editor. Equine MRI. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley; 2011. p. 421-450.
- 17 Blaik MA, Hanson RR, Kincaid SA. et al. Low-Field magnetic resonance imaging of the equine tarsus: normal anatomy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000; 41: 131-141.
- 18 Latorre R, Arencibia A, Gil F. et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance images with anatomic features of the equine tarsus. AM J vet Res 2006; 67: 756-761.
- 19 Nagy A, Dyson S. Magnetic resonance imaging and histological findings in the proximal aspect of the suspensory ligament of forelimbs in non-lame horses. Equine Vet J 2012; 44: 43-50.
- 20 Nagy A, Dyson S. Magnetic resonance anatomy of the proximal metacarpal region of the horse described from images aquired from low-and high-field magnets. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009; 50: 595-605.
- 21 Bischofberger AS, Konar M, Ohlert S. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography and histology of the suspensory ligament orig. In: a comparative study of normal anatomy of warmblood horses. Equine Vet J 2006; 38: 508-516.
- 22 Schramme M, Josson A, Linder K. Characterization of the origin and body of the normal equine rear suspernsory ligament using ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and histology. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53: 318-328.
- 23 Butler J, Colles CM, Dyson SJ. et al. Fusion times of physes and suture lines. In: Clinical Radiology of the horse. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008: 712-713.
- 24 Vahlensieck M, Träber F, Gieseke J. Relevante MR-Techniken [Relevant MR-Techniques]. In: Vahlensieck M, Reiser M. editors. MRT des Bewegungsapparates [MRI of the Musculoskeletal system]. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2006. p. 1-24.
- 25 Zubrod CJ, Schneider RK, Tucker RL. Use of magnetic resonance imaging to identify suspensory desmitis and adhesions between exostoses of the second metacarpal bone and the suspensory ligament. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 224: 1815-1820.
- 26 Souza MV, van Weeren PR, van Schie HTM. et al. Regional differences in biochemical, biomechanical and histomorphological characteristics of the equine suspensory ligament. Equine Vet J 2010; 42: 611-620.
- 27 Wilson DA, Baker GJ, Pijanowski GJ. et al. Composition and morphologic features of the interosseous muscle in standardbreds and thoroughbreds. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52: 133-139.
- 28 Dyson SJ, Arthur RM, Palmer EP. et al. Suspensory ligament desmitis. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1995; 11: 177-215.
- 29 Soffler C, Hermanson JW. Muscular design in the equine interosseus muscle. J Morphol 2006; 267: 696-704.
- 30 Schulze T, Budras KD. About the clinical and functional anatomy of the suspensory ligament (M. interosseus medius) and high suspensory desmitis in the horse. Pferdeheilkunde 2008; 24: 343-350.
- 31 Murray R, Werpy N. Image interpretation and artefacts. In: Murray RC. editor. Equine MRI. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley; 2011. p. 124.
- 32 Muylle S, Vanderperren K, Saunders J. et al. Morphometric data on the accessory ligament of the deep digital flexor tendon in the equine hindlimb. Vet J 2010; 184: 298-302.
- 33 Dyce KM, Sack WO, Wensing CJG. The hindlimb of the horse. In: Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy. St. Louis: WB Saunders; 2010. p. 632-638.
- 34 Barone R. Arthrologie et myology. In: Anatomie comparée des Mammifères Domestiques [Comparative Anatomy of Domestic Animals]. Tome second 4ième edn Paris: Vigot; 2000. p. 791-793.
- 35 Eliashar E, Dyson SJ, Archer RM. et al. Two clinical manifestations of desmopathy of the accessory ligament of the deep digital flexor tendon in the hindlimb of 23 horses. Equine Vet J 2005; 37: 495-500.
- 36 Boswell JC, Schramme MC. Desmitis of the accessory ligament of the deep digital flexor tendon in the hindlimb in a horse. Equine Vet Educ 2000; 12: 129-132.
- 37 Nagy A, Dyson S. Anatomical, magnetic resonance imaging and histological findings in the accessory ligament of the deep digital flexor tendon of forelimbs in nonlame horses. Equine Vet J 2011; 43: 309-326.