Advertisement

Computed tomography and cross-sectional anatomy of the brain in clinically normal dogs

Lieve M. De RyckeDepartment of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Lieve M. De Rycke in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Ingrid M. GielenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Ingrid M. Gielen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MSc
,
Sofie A. Van MeervenneDepartment of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Sofie A. Van Meervenne in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Paul J. SimoensDepartment of Morphology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Paul J. Simoens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
, and
Henri J. van BreeDepartment of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Henri J. van Bree in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To provide a detailed anatomic description of brain structures in clinically normal dogs by means of computed tomography (CT).

Animals—4 clinically normal adult German Shepherd Dogs weighing 30 to 35 kg.

Procedure—Each dog was anesthetized and positioned in ventral recumbency for CT examination of the brain; transverse scans were completed at 2-mm intervals from the cribriform plate of the ethmoid bone to the cranial part of the atlas by use of a thirdgeneration CT scanner. Contrast material was injected IV, and a second series of scans was completed. Images (with or without contrast) from all dogs were reviewed by use of a soft tissue setting (window width, 150 Hounsfield units; window level, 50 Hounsfield units). One of the dogs was euthanatized, and a 3.5% formaldehyde solution was perfused via the common carotid arteries. After fixation, the brain was embedded in gelatin and sectioned into 5-mm thick transverse sections by use of a stainless-steel knife. Anatomic sections were photographed and compared with the corresponding CT views.

Results—Most features of the brain that were identified on anatomic sections could be identified on the corresponding CT scans despite the low contrast between structures, particularly if adjacent bony and soft tissue structures were used as landmarks. Additional anatomic structures surrounding the brain were also identifiable on the CT images.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Images obtained in this study could be used as a guide for evaluation of CT images of the brain in dogs with brain diseases. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66;1743–1756)

Abstract

Objective—To provide a detailed anatomic description of brain structures in clinically normal dogs by means of computed tomography (CT).

Animals—4 clinically normal adult German Shepherd Dogs weighing 30 to 35 kg.

Procedure—Each dog was anesthetized and positioned in ventral recumbency for CT examination of the brain; transverse scans were completed at 2-mm intervals from the cribriform plate of the ethmoid bone to the cranial part of the atlas by use of a thirdgeneration CT scanner. Contrast material was injected IV, and a second series of scans was completed. Images (with or without contrast) from all dogs were reviewed by use of a soft tissue setting (window width, 150 Hounsfield units; window level, 50 Hounsfield units). One of the dogs was euthanatized, and a 3.5% formaldehyde solution was perfused via the common carotid arteries. After fixation, the brain was embedded in gelatin and sectioned into 5-mm thick transverse sections by use of a stainless-steel knife. Anatomic sections were photographed and compared with the corresponding CT views.

Results—Most features of the brain that were identified on anatomic sections could be identified on the corresponding CT scans despite the low contrast between structures, particularly if adjacent bony and soft tissue structures were used as landmarks. Additional anatomic structures surrounding the brain were also identifiable on the CT images.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Images obtained in this study could be used as a guide for evaluation of CT images of the brain in dogs with brain diseases. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66;1743–1756)