3T high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging, conventional ultrasonography and ultrasound biomicroscopy of the normal canine eye.
3 Tesla
Dog
Eye
HR-MRI
MRI microscopy
Microcoil
Ultrasound
Ultrasound biomicroscopy
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Feb 2022
10 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
28
08
2021
accepted:
03
12
2021
entrez:
11
2
2022
pubmed:
12
2
2022
medline:
7
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advances in MRI coil technology and increased availability of high-field MRI in veterinary medicine enable the acquisition of images of increasingly high spatial resolution while preserving signal-to-noise ratio.The purpose of the present study was to compare 3T high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) with ultrasound (US) and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in the normal canine eye, to assess its potential to depict normal ocular anatomy. HR-MRI was compared with US and UBM in 10 eyes from 10 healthy beagle dogs. Ocular structures (cornea, anterior chamber, iridocorneal angle, iris, lens, ciliary body, choroid, vitreous body, posterior wall of the eye, optic nerve and optic nerve sheath, extraocular muscles) were assessed subjectively and central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), anteroposterior, mediolateral and dorsoventral lens diameter (APLD, MLLD, DVLD), anteroposterior diameter of the globe including and excluding the scleroretinal rim (APDSRR, APD), vitreous chamber depth (VCD) and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) were measured in HR-MRI and in US. Optic nerve diameter (OND) was measured in HR-MRI. HR-MRI and UBM appearance of the anterior segment were subjectively compared. Detailed reference high-resolution MRI images of normal eyes of Beagle dogs are provided. HR-MRI allowed assessment of all structures identified with US and UBM. The MRI examinations were performed under general anesthesia with the addition of a neuromuscular blocking agent, while US and UBM examinations were performed in conscious animals. Visibility of the entire ocular wall, the lens, the structures caudal to the ciliary body and the optic nerve and its sheath was superior with HR-MRI. HR-MRI allowed the distinction of retina, choroid and sclera, and the delineation of structures not previously identified in canine eyes with MRI, including Tenon's capsule and the sub-Tenon's space.Plane selection was more accurate with HR-MRI compared to US. In general, the range of measurements was narrower for MRI than for US. CCT, AQD, APLD, MLLD, APD, APDSRR and ONSD differed significantly between HR-MRI and US, respectively (p = 0.005-0.027).Micro-MRI may be useful for the assessment of ocular pathologies in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Advances in MRI coil technology and increased availability of high-field MRI in veterinary medicine enable the acquisition of images of increasingly high spatial resolution while preserving signal-to-noise ratio.The purpose of the present study was to compare 3T high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) with ultrasound (US) and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in the normal canine eye, to assess its potential to depict normal ocular anatomy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
HR-MRI was compared with US and UBM in 10 eyes from 10 healthy beagle dogs. Ocular structures (cornea, anterior chamber, iridocorneal angle, iris, lens, ciliary body, choroid, vitreous body, posterior wall of the eye, optic nerve and optic nerve sheath, extraocular muscles) were assessed subjectively and central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), anteroposterior, mediolateral and dorsoventral lens diameter (APLD, MLLD, DVLD), anteroposterior diameter of the globe including and excluding the scleroretinal rim (APDSRR, APD), vitreous chamber depth (VCD) and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) were measured in HR-MRI and in US. Optic nerve diameter (OND) was measured in HR-MRI. HR-MRI and UBM appearance of the anterior segment were subjectively compared. Detailed reference high-resolution MRI images of normal eyes of Beagle dogs are provided.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HR-MRI allowed assessment of all structures identified with US and UBM. The MRI examinations were performed under general anesthesia with the addition of a neuromuscular blocking agent, while US and UBM examinations were performed in conscious animals. Visibility of the entire ocular wall, the lens, the structures caudal to the ciliary body and the optic nerve and its sheath was superior with HR-MRI. HR-MRI allowed the distinction of retina, choroid and sclera, and the delineation of structures not previously identified in canine eyes with MRI, including Tenon's capsule and the sub-Tenon's space.Plane selection was more accurate with HR-MRI compared to US. In general, the range of measurements was narrower for MRI than for US. CCT, AQD, APLD, MLLD, APD, APDSRR and ONSD differed significantly between HR-MRI and US, respectively (p = 0.005-0.027).Micro-MRI may be useful for the assessment of ocular pathologies in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35144606
doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-03108-0
pii: 10.1186/s12917-021-03108-0
pmc: PMC8829979
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
67Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Nov;66(5):1416-21
pubmed: 21604296
Vet Ophthalmol. 2014 May;17(3):207-11
pubmed: 23763504
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2015 Oct;49(5):284-288
pubmed: 25946966
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2008 Nov-Dec;49(6):540-4
pubmed: 19051642
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Dec;51(12):6575-81
pubmed: 20688731
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Aug;66(2):546-54
pubmed: 21360746
Can Vet J. 1993 Jul;34(7):418-24
pubmed: 17424252
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Dec 1;223(11):1617-22, 1599
pubmed: 14664449
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2018 Nov;59(6):705-714
pubmed: 29978528
J Vet Sci. 2003 Dec;4(3):265-8
pubmed: 14685033
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Aug;35(8):1488-9; author reply 1490-1
pubmed: 19367390
Eye (Lond). 2021 May;35(5):1295-1304
pubmed: 33536591
Am J Vet Res. 2006 Oct;67(10):1743-9
pubmed: 17014326
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011 Apr;249(4):475-82
pubmed: 21287191
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 14;103(46):17525-30
pubmed: 17088544
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Aug 07;55(9):5662-72
pubmed: 25103267
Eye (Lond). 2008 Aug;22(8):994-6
pubmed: 17332767
Vet Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov;20(6):488-495
pubmed: 28008696
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Feb;67(2):348-56
pubmed: 19138609
Radiology. 1993 Jul;188(1):219-26
pubmed: 8511302
Radiographics. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):499-516
pubmed: 22411945
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005 Feb;16(1):93-9
pubmed: 15722021
Vet Ophthalmol. 2019 Sep;22(5):703-709
pubmed: 30977286
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Jan;53(1):61-8
pubmed: 15690503
Vet Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar;18(2):89-94
pubmed: 24131770
Orbit. 2008;27(2):107-14
pubmed: 18415870
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2014 Jan-Feb;55(1):63-7
pubmed: 23890158
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Sep 14;52(10):7232-7
pubmed: 21828153
Ophthalmology. 2011 Jul;118(7):1484
pubmed: 21724050
J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2012 Jan-Apr;6(1):25-53
pubmed: 27990069
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997 Jan;18(1):161-4
pubmed: 9010535
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Apr;23(4):465-72
pubmed: 16523482
Phys Med. 2018 Mar;47:50-57
pubmed: 29609818
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2013 May-Jun;54(3):263-70
pubmed: 23464530