• 1.

    VanGundy TE. Disc-associated wobbler syndrome in the Doberman Pinscher. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1988; 18:667-696.

  • 2.

    Dueland RFumeaux RWKaye MM. Spinal fusion and dorsal laminectomy for midcervical spondylolisthesis in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1973; 162:366-369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Gage EDHoerlein BF. Surgical repair of cervical subluxation and spondylolisthesis in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1973; 9:385-390.

  • 4.

    Parker AJPark RDCusick PK, et al. Cervical vertebral instability in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1973; 163:71-74.

  • 5.

    Wright FRest JRPalmer AC. Ataxia of the Great Dane caused by stenosis of the cervical vertebral canal: comparison with similar conditions in the Basset Hound, Doberman Pinscher, Ridgeback and the Thoroughbred horse. Vet Rec 1973; 92:1-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Denny HRGibbs CGaskell CJ. Cervical spondylopathy in the dog. A review of thirty-five cases. J Small Anim Pract 1977; 18:117-132.

  • 7.

    Mason TA. Cervical vertebral instability (wobbler syndrome) in the Doberman. Aust Vet J 1977; 53:440-445.

  • 8.

    Read RARobbins GMCarlisle CH. Caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy. Wobbler syndrome in the dog: a review of thirty cases. J Small Anim Pract 1983; 24:605-621.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Shores A. Canine cervical vertebral malformation-malarticulation syndrome. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1984; 6:326-333.

  • 10.

    Sharp NJHWheeler SJ. Cervical spondylomyelopathy. In: Small animal spinal disorders: diagnosis and surgery. 2nd ed. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby, 2005;211-246.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Jeffery NDMcKee WM. Surgery for disc-associated wobbler syndrome in the dog—an examination of the controversy J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42:574-581.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Levitski RELipsitz DChauvet AE. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine in 27 dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1999; 40:332-341.

  • 13.

    da Costa RCParent JDobson H, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and myelography in 18 Doberman Pinscher dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006; 47:523-531.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Thomson CEKornegay JNBurn RA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging—a general overview of principles and examples in veterinary neurodiagnosis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1993; 34:2-17.

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

    da Costa RCParent JMPartlow G, et al. Morphologic and morphometric magnetic resonance imaging features of Doberman Pinschers with and without clinical signs of cervical spondylo-myelopathy. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67:1601-1612.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    De Decker SGielen IMVLDuchateau L, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging findings of the caudal portion of the cervical region in clinically normal Doberman Pinschers and Foxhounds. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71:428-434.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Landis JRKoch GG. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174.

  • 18.

    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall CRC, 1991;404.

  • 19.

    Fehlings MGFurlan JCMassicotte EM, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of maximum canal compromise and spinal cord compression for evaluation of acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Spine 2006; 31:1719-1725.

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

    Cook CBraga-Baiak APietrobon R, et al. Observer agreement of spine stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging analysis of patients with cervical spine myelopathy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008; 31:271-276.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Carrino JALurie JDTosteson ANA, et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009; 205:161-170.

  • 22.

    De Decker SGielen IMVLDuchateau L, et al. Agreement and repeatability of linear vertebral body and canal measurements using computed tomography (CT) and low field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Vet Surg 2010; 39:28-34.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Teresi LMLufkin RBReicher MA, et al. Asymptomatic degenerative disk disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 164:83-88.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Jack CR JrBerquist THMiller GM, et al. Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: a comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomograph 1990; 14:505-513.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Rutt BKLee DH. The impact of field strength on image quality in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6:57-62.

  • 26.

    Maubon AJFerru JMBerger V, et al. Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Radiographics 1999; 19:1057-1067.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Merl TSols MGerhard P, et al. Results of a prospective multi-center study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard. Eur J Radiol 1999; 30:43-53.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Taber KHHerrick RCWeathers SW, et al. Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics 1998; 18:1499-1521.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Peh WCGChan JHM. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Int Skeletal Soc 2001; 30:179-191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Czervionke LFCzervionke JMDaniels DL, et al. Characteristic features of MR truncation artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:1219-1228.

  • 31.

    Morishita YNaito MHymanson, et al. The relationship between the cervical spinal canal diameter and the pathological changes in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 2009; 18:877-883.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Bailey CSMorgan JP. Congenital spinal malformations. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22:985-1015.

  • 33.

    Lincoln JD. Cervical vertebral malformation/malarticulation syndrome in large dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22:923-935.

  • 34.

    Breit SKünzel W. Osteologic features in pure-bred dogs predisposing to cervical spinal cord compression. J Anat 2001; 199:527-537.

  • 35.

    Boden SDMcCowin PRDavis DO, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J BoneJoint Surg Am 1990; 72:1178-1184.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Lewis DDHosgood G. Complications associated with the use of iohexol for myelography of the cervical vertebral column in dogs: 66 cases (1988–1990). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 200:1381-1384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for results of low-field magnetic resonance imaging in dogs with and without clinical signs of disk-associated wobbler syndrome

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Medical Imaging of Domestic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 2 Orthopaedics of Small Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 3 Physiology and Biometrics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 4 Division of Clinical Radiology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, Bern University, CH-3012 Berne, Switzerland
  • | 5 Centre for Small Animal Studies, Animal Health Trust, Lanwades Park, Kentford, Newmarket, CB8 7UU, England
  • | 6 Davies Veterinary Specialists, Manor Farm Business Park, Higham Gobion, Hertfordshire, SG5 3HR, England
  • | 7 Orthopaedics of Small Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 8 Departments of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Medical Imaging of Domestic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 9 Departments of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Medical Imaging of Domestic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 10 Departments of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Medical Imaging of Domestic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
  • | 11 Departments of Small Animal Medicine and Clinical Biology, Medical Imaging of Domestic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium

Abstract

Objective—To determine interobserver and intraobserver agreement for results of low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in dogs with and without disk-associated wobbler syndrome (DAWS).

Design—Validation study.

Animals—21 dogs with and 23 dogs without clinical signs of DAWS.

Procedures—For each dog, MRI of the cervical vertebral column was performed. The MRI studies were presented in a randomized sequence to 4 board-certified radiologists blinded to clinical status. Observers assessed degree of disk degeneration, disk-associated and dorsal compression, alterations in intraspinal signal intensity (ISI), vertebral body abnormalities, and new bone formation and categorized each study as originating from a clinically affected or clinically normal dog. Interobserver agreement was calculated for 44 initial measurements for each observer. Intraobserver agreement was calculated for 11 replicate measurements for each observer.

Results—There was good interobserver agreement for ratings of disk degeneration and vertebral body abnormalities and moderate interobserver agreement for ratings of disk-associated compression, dorsal compression, alterations in ISI, new bone formation, and suspected clinical status. There was very good intraobserver agreement for ratings of disk degeneration, disk-associated compression, alterations in ISI, vertebral body abnormalities, and suspected clinical status. There was good intraobserver agreement for ratings of dorsal compression and new bone formation. Two of 21 clinically affected dogs were erroneously categorized as clinically normal, and 4 of 23 clinically normal dogs were erroneously categorized as clinically affected.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that variability exists among observers with regard to results of MRI in dogs with DAWS and that MRI could lead to false-positive and false-negative assessments.

Abstract

Objective—To determine interobserver and intraobserver agreement for results of low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in dogs with and without disk-associated wobbler syndrome (DAWS).

Design—Validation study.

Animals—21 dogs with and 23 dogs without clinical signs of DAWS.

Procedures—For each dog, MRI of the cervical vertebral column was performed. The MRI studies were presented in a randomized sequence to 4 board-certified radiologists blinded to clinical status. Observers assessed degree of disk degeneration, disk-associated and dorsal compression, alterations in intraspinal signal intensity (ISI), vertebral body abnormalities, and new bone formation and categorized each study as originating from a clinically affected or clinically normal dog. Interobserver agreement was calculated for 44 initial measurements for each observer. Intraobserver agreement was calculated for 11 replicate measurements for each observer.

Results—There was good interobserver agreement for ratings of disk degeneration and vertebral body abnormalities and moderate interobserver agreement for ratings of disk-associated compression, dorsal compression, alterations in ISI, new bone formation, and suspected clinical status. There was very good intraobserver agreement for ratings of disk degeneration, disk-associated compression, alterations in ISI, vertebral body abnormalities, and suspected clinical status. There was good intraobserver agreement for ratings of dorsal compression and new bone formation. Two of 21 clinically affected dogs were erroneously categorized as clinically normal, and 4 of 23 clinically normal dogs were erroneously categorized as clinically affected.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that variability exists among observers with regard to results of MRI in dogs with DAWS and that MRI could lead to false-positive and false-negative assessments.

Contributor Notes

Dr. De Decker's present address is Department of Clinical Services, Queen Mother Hospital for Animals, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, England.

Supported by the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology, Flanders, Belgium.

Presented in abstract form at the 22nd Annual Symposium of the European Society of Veterinary Neurology, Bologna, Italy, September 2009.

Address correspondence to Dr. De Decker (sdedecker@rvc.ac.uk).