JVD 2009 1 Bar-Am Y, Pollard RE, Kass PH,Verstraete FJ The diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography in dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma

Question 1

What was the aim of the study?

Answer 1

To compare the diagnostic yield of conventional radiographs and computed tomography images of skulls of dogs and cats with maxillofacial trauma

Question 2

What percentage of fractures in cats are mandibular fractures and what percentage of fractures in dogs are mandibular and maxillary fractures?

Answer 2

11. 3- 23.1% of fractures in cats are mandibular

1. 5 - 6% of fractures in dogs are mandibular and <1% of fractures are maxillary.

Question 3

What 4 radiographic projections were compared to the CT images in this study?

Answer 3

dorsoventral (DV)
laterolateral (LL)
left and right lateral-oblique (OBL)

Question 4

How were the radiographs and the ct’s compared?

Answer 4

26 predefined clinically relevant anatomical features of the skull were individually evaluated in each study.

Question 5

What semi-quantitative scoring system was applied to the studies?

Answer 5

Scoring 0-3 was defined as
0= inability to identify the anatomic feature
1 = difficult to identify
2 = easy to identify
3 = very easy to identify

Question 6

How was maxillofacial trauma evaluated?

Answer 6

Each radiograph and ct was evaluated for the presence of any one of 27 predetermined potential traumatic injuries.
The case was scored as 1 if the finding was present t and 0 if it was not and results were then reported as a percentage of cases in which the finding was identified.