Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography for the determination of the developmental state of cranial sutures and synchondroses in the dog.
Brachycephaly
Canine
Craniosynostosis
Osteogenesis
Skull
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2019
01 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
19
04
2018
accepted:
17
06
2019
entrez:
3
7
2019
pubmed:
3
7
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During skull ontogenesis, growth centers in the skull base and calvarial bones allow gradual expansion of the cranial vault. Premature growth termination of cranial base synchondroses and/or calvarial sutures can result in devastating skull dysmorphologies. There is evidence to believe that a premature closure in one or more cranial growth centers contribute to the brachycephalic skull morphology in dogs. To provide a proof of concept for the non-invasive investigation of ontogenetic changes in cranial sutures and synchondroses in living dogs, we compared magnet resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) with histologic findings. Our aim was to determine the in vitro sensitivity and specificity for conventional clinical imaging methods in the assessment of cranial suture closure and synchondroses ossification in dogs. The evaluation of cranial base synchondroses in MRI had a sensitivity of up to 93.1% and a specificity of 72.7% dependent on the observer. The evaluation of cranial base synchondroses in CT had a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 86.4%. Suture assessment on MRI suture assessment had a sensitivity of 82.1% dependent on the observer and a specificity of 19.3%. CT suture assessment had a sensitivity of 85.1% and a specificity of 40.4% in dependence of the observer. Conventional cross-sectional imaging techniques (MRI and CT) allow reliable assessment of the open or closed state of synchondroses within the cranial base. In contrast CT and MRI are not suitable for a reliable assessment of the cranial sutures in dogs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
During skull ontogenesis, growth centers in the skull base and calvarial bones allow gradual expansion of the cranial vault. Premature growth termination of cranial base synchondroses and/or calvarial sutures can result in devastating skull dysmorphologies. There is evidence to believe that a premature closure in one or more cranial growth centers contribute to the brachycephalic skull morphology in dogs. To provide a proof of concept for the non-invasive investigation of ontogenetic changes in cranial sutures and synchondroses in living dogs, we compared magnet resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) with histologic findings. Our aim was to determine the in vitro sensitivity and specificity for conventional clinical imaging methods in the assessment of cranial suture closure and synchondroses ossification in dogs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The evaluation of cranial base synchondroses in MRI had a sensitivity of up to 93.1% and a specificity of 72.7% dependent on the observer. The evaluation of cranial base synchondroses in CT had a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 86.4%. Suture assessment on MRI suture assessment had a sensitivity of 82.1% dependent on the observer and a specificity of 19.3%. CT suture assessment had a sensitivity of 85.1% and a specificity of 40.4% in dependence of the observer.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional cross-sectional imaging techniques (MRI and CT) allow reliable assessment of the open or closed state of synchondroses within the cranial base. In contrast CT and MRI are not suitable for a reliable assessment of the cranial sutures in dogs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31262279
doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-1967-9
pii: 10.1186/s12917-019-1967-9
pmc: PMC6604170
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
221Références
Front Oral Biol. 2008;12:xi
pubmed: 18491429
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2009 Apr;11 Suppl 1:S186-9
pubmed: 19261532
Cell. 1995 Feb 10;80(3):371-8
pubmed: 7859279
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011 Jul-Aug;52(4):436-40
pubmed: 21521397
Zoolog Sci. 2005 Jan;22(1):1-19
pubmed: 15684579
Anat Rec. 1985 May;212(1):81-9
pubmed: 4073546
Acta Anat (Basel). 1982;114(1):58-67
pubmed: 7148378
J Vet Intern Med. 2017 Sep;31(5):1487-1501
pubmed: 28833532
Dev Dyn. 2000 Dec;219(4):472-85
pubmed: 11084647
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016 May;59(3):219-26
pubmed: 27226852
Gegenbaurs Morphol Jahrb. 1966;109(4):501-603
pubmed: 6011775
J Craniofac Surg. 2006 Sep;17(5):909-19
pubmed: 17003620
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Nov;144(5):759-69
pubmed: 24182592
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2013 Sep-Oct;54(5):497-503
pubmed: 23782353
Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Jun;2(6):458-68
pubmed: 11389462
J Small Anim Pract. 2009 Aug;50(8):386-93
pubmed: 19689665
Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2004 Feb;276(2):150-61
pubmed: 14752854
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 12;9(2):e88120
pubmed: 24533070
Korean J Orthod. 2016 Sep;46(5):323-30
pubmed: 27668195
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2011;13(1):35-40
pubmed: 21500762
J Anat. 2005 Nov;207(5):637-53
pubmed: 16313397
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2016 Apr;299(4):412-20
pubmed: 26995336
Invest Radiol. 1994 Oct;29(10):890-6
pubmed: 7852040
J Morphol. 1991 Mar;207(3):225-39
pubmed: 1856873
Dev Biol. 2008 Sep 15;321(2):407-19
pubmed: 18652813
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 9;11(11):e0165775
pubmed: 27829009
J Neurosurg. 1984 Jul;61(1):53-8
pubmed: 6726411