Get access

The Diagnostic Yield of Conventional Radiographs and Computed Tomography in Dogs and Cats with Maxillofacial Trauma

Authors

  • YOAV BAR-AM DVM,

    1. Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, the Departments of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, and Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • RACHEL E. POLLARD DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVR,

    1. Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, the Departments of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, and Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • PHILIP H. KASS DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVPM,

    1. Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, the Departments of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, and Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • FRANK J.M. VERSTRAETE DrMedVet, MMedVet, Diplomate AVDC & ECVS

    1. Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, the Departments of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, and Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Presented at the 16th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons June 28–30, 2007 Dublin, Ireland.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Frank J. M. Verstraete, DrMedVet, MMedVet, Diplomate AVDC & ECVS, Department of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: fjverstraete@ucdavis.edu.

Abstract

Objective— To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images of the skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma (MFT).

Study Design— Prospective study.

Animals— Dogs (n=9) and 15 cats with MFT.

Methods— CT-scans and skull radiographs (4 standard projections) for each animal were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system for the ability to identify 26 predefined, clinically relevant anatomic features (Part 1), and 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries (Part 2). For Part 1, mean scores for each anatomic feature were recorded for every view and imaging modality. For Part 2, studies were evaluated for the frequency of cases where each predetermined traumatic injury was identified.

Results— Part 1: On radiographs it was easy to identify 17 of 26 anatomic features whereas 6 features were very difficult or impossible to identify on any view. All structures were considered easy or very easy to identify on CT. Scores for CT were lower than radiographs for evaluating dental occlusion and the integrity of the mandibular body. Part 2: CT scans demonstrated 1.6 times more maxillofacial injuries for dogs and 2.0 times more for cats than conventional radiographs. The average number of MFT injuries per animal by radiographs and CT-scan was 4.8 and 7.6 in dogs, and 3.8 and 7.7 in cats, respectively.

Conclusion— CT is superior to conventional skull radiography for identification of anatomic structures and traumatic injuries in dogs and cats. Skull radiography is useful for visualizing the mandibular body and dental occlusion.

Clinical Relevance— CT allows for accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning of MFT in dogs and cats.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary