Cross‐anatomical, radiographic and computed tomographic study of the stifle joint of donkeys (Equus africanus asinus)

Abstract

The present investigation was conducted to provide a full anatomical description of the stifle joint of donkeys using 3D computed tomography imaging technique, in addition to the classic anatomical methods, such as radiography and cross‐anatomical sectioning. The radiography and CT imaging of stifle joint were interpreted in comparison with cross‐sectional anatomical sections. Volume‐rendering reconstruction techniques (3D‐CT) were used to describe the anatomical structure of stifle joint. The used twelve adult healthy donkeys were free from any musculoskeletal disorders. Four donkeys were used for the gross anatomical observations, four for CT and radiography and two live animals for determination the site of injections. The results of this study revealed that the complex stifle joint was formed from three joints: femorotibial, femoropatellar and proximal tibiofibular. The articular surfaces were described for each joint, and the synovial layer of the articular capsule formed three main joint sacs: femoropatellar, medial femorotibial and lateral femorotibial sacs. The ligaments of stifle joint were recorded, and meniscal ligaments included cranial and caudal ligaments of medial and lateral menisci and meniscofemoral ligament of lateral meniscus. The cruciate ligaments were also described and they included the cranial and caudal cruciate ligaments, while the patellar ligament included the medial, middle and lateral patellar ligaments. The arterial supply and the site of injection of the stifle joint were described. In conclusion, the 3D reconstruction CT provided well‐defined baseline reference image for the stifle joint of donkeys for anatomist, radiologist, surgeons and researchers.

Gross anatomical, computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging study of the metacarpo/metatarsophalangeal joint in Egyptian buffalo(Bubalus bubalis)

“…CT and MRI used in the current study provided a synchronized visualization of bone and soft structures without overlapping of soft tissues. These results agreed with those of Kraft and Gavin (2001) in equine, Hagag and Tawfiek (2018) in bovine and Ibrahim et al (2019a), Ibrahim et al (2019b in camel and Abumandour et al (2020) in donkey. In addition to that, three-dimensional imaging of the clinically relevant anatomical structures provided by CT and MRI could help in diagnosis of orthopaedic disorders (Raji et al, 2008(Raji et al, , 2009.…”

“…(2019b) in camel and Abumandour et al. (2020) in donkey. In addition to that, three‐dimensional imaging of the clinically relevant anatomical structures provided by CT and MRI could help in diagnosis of orthopaedic disorders (Raji et al., 2008, 2009).…”

“…CT and MRI became widely used in veterinary practice as modern diagnostic modalities for the evaluation of multiple musculoskeletal disorders (Keane et al, 2017;Morrow et al, 2000). These techniques characterized by the entire visualization of both bone and soft tissues without overlapping or superimposing (Abumandour et al, 2019(Abumandour et al, , 2020Kraft & Gavin, 2001). Moreover, CT and MRI are characterized by high-contrast resolution, tomographic nature and three-dimensional reconstructed images which enable better differentiation of the structural anatomical relationships (Thrall, 2013).…”

Morphological Comparison Between the Large Metatarsal Bone of Zebu bull (Bos Taurus indicus) and Egyptian Baladi bull (Bos Taurus Taurus): New Insights by Gross, Morphometric, and Computed Tomography

“…The CT images were 1 cm slice thickness with 1 cm interval. For bone windows, we adapted the apparatus with 200 Hounsfield units in the windows width and 1600 Hounsfield units in the windows level, meanwhile 30 Hounsfield units in the windows width and 290 Hounsfield units in the windows level were adjusted for soft window 1 .…”

“…The gross morphology of these bones is well described in livestock with minor comparative points to the ruminants 5,7,8,12 . The gross anatomical features of these bones and their functional structure were described 1,2,4 . However, the available anatomical data about the skeletal components of zebu (Bos Taurus indicus) are scanty.…”