Comparison Between Ultrasonographic and Standing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in the Podotrochlear Apparatus of Horses With Foot Pain.
Authors: Evrard Laurence, Joostens Zoë, Vandersmissen Maxime, Audigié Fabrice, Busoni Valeria
Journal: Frontiers in veterinary science
Summary
# Editorial Summary When lameness localises to the foot but radiographs prove unrevealing, ultrasonography and standing MRI both offer valuable diagnostic windows into the deep digital flexor tendon, navicular bone and bursa—yet they illuminate different pathology with striking inconsistency. Researchers conducting a prospective blinded comparison examined 34 feet from lame horses using both modalities and found that ultrasonography detected more DDFT abnormalities overall (32 vs. 27 feet), particularly in the suprasesamoidean region, whilst standing MRI proved superior for identifying palmar navicular bone pathology (30 vs. 23 feet). Critically, echogenicity changes in the proximal DDFT did not reliably predict MRI signal patterns, and transcuneal ultrasound failed to adequately characterise the morphology and extent of distal DDFT lesions or distinguish between affected lobes—findings that challenge the precision of ultrasound-only assessment in this region. Parasagittal bone defects of the navicular bone appeared exclusively on MRI, highlighting an important diagnostic blind spot for ultrasonography. For practitioners managing horses with navicular syndrome or chronic foot pain, these results underline that standing MRI and ultrasonography are complementary rather than interchangeable, with ultrasound excelling at proximal tendon assessment but MRI essential for comprehensive evaluation of bone architecture and distal tendon pathology.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Use ultrasonography as first-line imaging for suspected DDFT lesions, but recognize it may miss subtle navicular bone involvement
- •Standing MRI should be performed when navicular bone pathology is suspected, as it detects palmar bone changes ultrasonography frequently misses
- •Combining both imaging modalities provides most complete assessment of podotrochlear apparatus disease; relying on ultrasound alone risks missing important bone and bursal pathology
Key Findings
- •Ultrasonography detected more DDFT abnormalities overall (32/34 feet) compared to standing MRI (27/34 feet)
- •Standing MRI identified significantly more palmar navicular abnormalities (30/34 feet) than ultrasonography (23/34 feet)
- •Echogenicity changes in suprasesamoidean DDFT lesions did not correlate with specific MRI signal patterns
- •Standing MRI was superior for detecting parasagittal palmar compact bone defects that were missed on ultrasonography