Premium
Computed tomography evaluation of proposed implant corridors in canine thoracic vertebrae
Author(s) -
Schmitt Elizabeth M.,
Early Peter,
Bergman Robert,
Riedesel Elizabeth A.,
Yuan Lingnan,
Mochel Jonathan P.,
Kraus Karl H.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
veterinary surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.652
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1532-950X
pISSN - 0161-3499
DOI - 10.1111/vsu.13680
Subject(s) - medicine , sagittal plane , computed tomographic , thoracic vertebrae , computed tomography , dorsum , population , implant , nuclear medicine , thoracic spine , anatomy , lumbar vertebrae , radiology , surgery , lumbar , environmental health
Abstract Objective Identify acceptable implant corridors in the normal canine thoracic vertebrae (T) from T1 to T9. Study Design Retrospective study. Sample Population Computed tomographic (CT) studies of normal canine thoracic spines ( n = 39). Methods CT imaging studies of normal T1‐T9 canine spines were evaluated by five independent observers. Each identified a proposed corridor, measured the width, length, and angle off mid‐sagittal that the corridor occupied. Results CT studies were from 39 dogs weighing 3.19–60 kg (mean 10.72, SD 9.9 kg). Vertebral corridors ranged in average width from 3.8 to 5.2 mm, the widest being located at T1. They ranged in average length from 13.3 to 17.5 mm, shortest being T1 and longest being T6. The angle of corridors varied the most between individual vertebrae at T1‐T3. The average corridor angles were: T1 = 38°, T2 = 32°, T3 = 27°, T4 = 26°. T5‐T9 angle ranged from 23° to 24°. Conclusion The average dimensions of corridors measured in dogs weighing 3.1–60 kg were consistent with those of commercially available cortical screws and pins. Clinical Significance Corridor trajectories identified in this population can be achieved from a dorsal approach between T5 and T9. A dorsal approach for implant placement would be challenging for T1‐T4 due to the variability found in these vertebrae as well as regional anatomical constraints.