Background Computed tomography in standing horses has revolutionized diagnostic imaging. The O-arm®, a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner with a gantry opening of 96.5 cm is routinely used for image-guided spine and neurosurgery in humans. The aim of this study is to describe the set-up and first experiences using the O-arm® to achieve CBCT imaging of the head in standing horses. CT imaging of the predefined region of interest (ROI) was tested on 2 cadaveric heads, concentrating on centering issues within the gantry, as well as determining the number of scans needed per ROI. All horses presented with head-related diseases and subjected to a CBCT examination between February 2015 and November 2016 for CBCT were included. Per scan, a limited field of view, i.e. a cylindrical volume of 21 cm in diameter and 16 cm in height was acquired within 13 s. Depending on the dimensions of the ROI, the minimum number of scans could range from one to six, if the entire equine head is to be examined in an adult horse. Results Sixty-eight horses were included, five of which had a follow-up CBCT exam, and two of which were presented twice for two different indications (75 clinical cases). A total number of 449 acquired three-dimensional (3D) scans were recorded for these 75 cases. Two-hundred and forty-two 3D scans (54%) were considered as diagnostic quality. The imaging procedure was generally well tolerated by the sedated, standing equid, and diagnostic studies were performed in 73 out of 75 cases (97.3%). Motion artefacts and inadequate centering of the ROI were the most common reasons for non-diagnostic quality images and repeat scans of the same ROI. Conclusions CBCT is a valuable imaging modality for the equine head. Advantages of the O-arm® compared to a conventional multi-slice helical CT for imaging of the head in standing equids include the rapid image acquisition, the gantry’s mobility in all dimensions, and the free movability of the entire imaging unit. Disadvantages include the considerable sensitivity to motion artefact, increased scatter, low soft tissue contrast and the limited dimensions of the field of view.
Background Equine pastern dermatitis (EPD) is a common dermatological problem in horses, yet its aetiology and pathogenesis are poorly understood. Objectives This study aimed to investigate the effects of lesion severity and topical antimicrobial treatment on bacterial flora of EPD‐affected skin. Animals Sixteen horses with EPD were investigated. Methods and materials An observational study was conducted by assigning a clinical severity score ranging from 0 (macroscopically nonlesional) to 21 (severe), and sampling the most and least severely affected limbs of 16 horses (32 limbs) for bacteriological culture and 16S rRNA sequencing. Topical antimicrobial treatment in the month before sampling was recorded. The limbs were allocated to a nonlesional or mildly affected group (Group A, score 0–3) and a moderate to severely affected group (Group B, score 4–21). Results The most commonly cultured bacterial species was Staphylococcus aureus (one of 15 Group A versus nine of 17 Group B). Within Group B, S. aureus was found in three of six limbs treated with topical antimicrobials and in six of 11 untreated limbs. β‐haemolytic streptococci (three of 32) and Trueperella pyogenes (two of 32) also were cultured exclusively in the untreated limbs of Group B. Staphylococci and streptococci were found more often by 16S rRNA sequencing than in culture. Limbs with higher lesion severity and topical antimicrobial treatment appeared to have a lower alpha diversity and different beta diversity compared to milder and untreated lesions. Conclusions and clinical importance Observed differences in microbiota of equine skin are likely to be linked to the presence and severity of EPD and topical antimicrobial treatment. Further research is needed to establish causal bacteria.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.