Computed tomographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and cross-sectional anatomic features of the manus in cadavers of dogs without forelimb disease

Christopher P. Ober Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

Search for other papers by Christopher P. Ober in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
and
Larry E. Freeman Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

Search for other papers by Larry E. Freeman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS

Abstract

Objective—To provide a detailed description of cross-sectional anatomic structures of the manus in canine cadavers in association with corresponding features in computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images.

Sample Population—7 cadavers of adult large-breed–type dogs (weight range, 25 to 30 kg) without forelimb disease.

Procedures—Forelimbs were removed from the cadavers within 4 hours after euthanasia and frozen. The right forelimbs of 3 cadavers were cut into 4-mm sections by use of a band saw; 1 limb each was sectioned in the transverse, dorsal, or sagittal plane. Sections were cleaned and then photographed. After thawing, transverse CT images of the right forelimbs of 3 additional cadavers were obtained, and the right forelimb of a seventh cadaver underwent MR imaging in the transverse, sagittal, and dorsal planes. The evaluated regions extended from the digits to the carpus. Features in CT and MR images that corresponded to clinically important anatomic structures in tissue sections were identified.

Results—For most of the anatomic structures evident in tissue sections, corresponding CT and MR imaging features were identified. Osseous and musculotendinous structures of the manus were readily detected in CT and MR images, whereas vascular structures were only rarely identified by use of the imaging techniques.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results of the detailed assessment of anatomic structures of the canine manus in association with corresponding features in CT and MR images will facilitate detection of pathological conditions and be beneficial in planning surgical procedures for diseases of the manus in dogs.

Abstract

Objective—To provide a detailed description of cross-sectional anatomic structures of the manus in canine cadavers in association with corresponding features in computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images.

Sample Population—7 cadavers of adult large-breed–type dogs (weight range, 25 to 30 kg) without forelimb disease.

Procedures—Forelimbs were removed from the cadavers within 4 hours after euthanasia and frozen. The right forelimbs of 3 cadavers were cut into 4-mm sections by use of a band saw; 1 limb each was sectioned in the transverse, dorsal, or sagittal plane. Sections were cleaned and then photographed. After thawing, transverse CT images of the right forelimbs of 3 additional cadavers were obtained, and the right forelimb of a seventh cadaver underwent MR imaging in the transverse, sagittal, and dorsal planes. The evaluated regions extended from the digits to the carpus. Features in CT and MR images that corresponded to clinically important anatomic structures in tissue sections were identified.

Results—For most of the anatomic structures evident in tissue sections, corresponding CT and MR imaging features were identified. Osseous and musculotendinous structures of the manus were readily detected in CT and MR images, whereas vascular structures were only rarely identified by use of the imaging techniques.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results of the detailed assessment of anatomic structures of the canine manus in association with corresponding features in CT and MR images will facilitate detection of pathological conditions and be beneficial in planning surgical procedures for diseases of the manus in dogs.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Ober's present address is Veterinary Clinical Sciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108.

Supported in part by a grant from the Virginia Veterinary Medical Association Veterinary Memorial Fund.

Address correspondence to Dr. Ober (cober@umn.edu).
  • 1.

    Fox PR, Puschner B, Ebel JG. Assessment of acute injuries, exposure to environmental toxins, and five-year health surveillance of New York Police Department working dogs following the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center terrorist attack. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:4859.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Slensky KA, Drobatz KJ, Downend AB, et al. Deployment morbidity among search-and-rescue dogs used after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:868873.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Brennan KE, Ihrke PJ. Grass awn migration in dogs and cats: a retrospective study of 182 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1983;182:12011204.

  • 4.

    Breathnach RM, Fanning S, Mulcahy G, et al. Canine pododermatitis and idiopathic disease. Vet J 2008;176:146157.

  • 5.

    Marino DJ, Matthiesen DT, Stefanacci JD, et al. Evaluation of dogs with digit masses: 117 cases (1981–1991). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995;207:726728.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Lamb CR, White RN, McEvoy FJ. Sinography in the investigation of draining tracts in small animals: retrospective review of 25 cases. Vet Surg 1994;23:129134.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Anderson MA, Newmeyer WL III, Kilgore ES Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg 1982;144:6367.

  • 8.

    Assheuer J, Sager M. Thoracic limb. In: Assheuer J, Sager M, eds. MRI and CT atlas of the dog. Berlin: Blackwell Science, 1997;183246.

  • 9.

    Russell RC, Williamson DA, Sullivan JW, et al. Detection of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am 1991;16:211.

  • 10.

    Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, Mäkäräinen H, et al.Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;22:119124.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Horton LK, Jacobson JA, Powell A, et al. Sonography and radiography of soft-tissue foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:11551159.

  • 12.

    Ober CP, Jones JC, Larson MM, et al. Comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detection of acute wooden foreign bodies in the canine manus. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:411418.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Basher A. Foot injuries in dogs and cats. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1994;16:11591176.

  • 14.

    Tang JSH, Gold RH, Bassett LW, et al. Musculoskeletal infection of the extremities: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 1988;166:205209.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Fayad LM, Carrino JA, Fishman EK. Musculoskeletal infection: role of CT in the emergency department. Radiographics 2007;27:17231736.

  • 16.

    Totty WG, Murphy WA, Lee JKT. Soft-tissue tumors: MR imaging. Radiology 1986;160:135141.

  • 17.

    Tehranzadeh J, Mnaymneh W, Ghavam C, et al. Comparison of CT and MR imaging in musculoskeletal neoplasms. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:466472.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Evans HE. Miller's anatomy of the dog. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1993.

  • 19.

    Tidwell AS, Jones JC. Advanced imaging concepts: a pictorial glossary of CT and MRI technology. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 1999;14:65111.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Bitar R, Leung G, Perng R, et al. MR pulse sequences: what every radiologist wants to know but is afraid to ask. Radiographics 2006;26:513537.

  • 21.

    Wetzel LH, Levine E, Murphey MD. A comparison of MR imaging and CT in the evaluation of musculoskeletal masses. Radiographics 1987;7:851874.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement