| Literature DB >> 32923474 |
Michael Carnevale1, Jeryl Jones1, Gang Li2, Julia Sharp3, Katherine Olson1, William Bridges4.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal injuries can lead to a working dog being withdrawn from service prior to retirement. During training exercises, young working dogs are often required to perform repetitive tasks, including adoption of an upright posture (or "hupp" task). Non-invasive, quantitative methods would be helpful for supporting research on effects of these repetitive tasks on sacroiliac joints (SIJ). Furthering our understanding of lesions in and biomechanical stresses on the SIJ could provide insight into possible training modifications for minimizing risks of SIJ injury. Aims of this retrospective, secondary analysis, exploratory study were to test hypotheses that (1) mean numbers of SIJ computed tomographic (CT) lesions/dog would differ among work status groups in young working Labrador Retrievers; (2) a methodology for using CT data and finite element analysis (FEA) to quantify SIJ ligament strain in the static canine pelvis would be feasible; and (3) this FEA methodology would yield repeatable measures of SIJ ligament strain. Clinical and CT data for 22 Labrador retriever working dogs, aged 11-48 months, were retrospectively reviewed. Dogs were categorized into three work status groups (Breeder, Detection, Other). A veterinary radiologist who was unaware of dog group status recorded numbers of CT lesions for each SIJ, based on previously published criteria. Mean numbers of SIJ CT lesions/dog were compared among dog work status groups. An a priori FEA model was created from the CT images of one of the dogs using image analysis software packages. Using tissue properties previously published for the human pelvis, various directional loads (n = 8) and forces (48 ligament strain values) were placed on the canine model in five trials. Repeatability was tested using regression analysis. There was a significantly greater mean number of subchondral sclerosis lesions in left SIJ of Breeder vs. Detection dogs, a significantly greater mean number of subchondral cysts in right SIJ for Detection vs. Breeder dogs, and a significantly greater mean number of subchondral cysts in right SIJ of Other vs. Breeder dogs (p < 0.05). Finite element modeling and analysis using CT data was feasible and yielded repeatable results in 47/48 (98%) of tests at each combination of strain, ligament, and side.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; finite element analysis; finite element modeling; sacroiliac joint; sacroiliac joint disease; working dogs
Year: 2020 PMID: 32923474 PMCID: PMC7457059 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Transverse, bone window CT images illustrating pelvic bone structures that were segmented for construction of the three-dimensional model. (A) S, sacrum; I, ilium; Large arrow = synovial component of sacroiliac joint space. Small arrow = fibrous component of sacroiliac joint space. (B) Cd1 = first caudal vertebra, I, ilium; (C) A, acetabulum; (D) Is, ischium; P, pubis; arrows = ischiatic tuberosities. Images are displayed with dorsal at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right.
Isotropic elasticity properties that were used for modeling the pelvic bones in the current canine study.
| 1.7E+10 | 0.3 | 1.4167E+10 | 6.5385E+09 |
These were previously published for human pelvic bones at room temperature (27°C) (.
Values of ligament stiffness as function of tensile strain that were used in the SIJ FEA model.
| 39 | 55 | 103 | 100 |
Figure 2Three-dimensional models displaying non-linear springs that were used to represent the sacroiliac joint ligaments. (A) dorsal sacroiliac ligaments, (B) ventral sacroiliac ligaments, (C) sacrotuberous ligament. Ten non-linear springs per side were used on both the dorsal sacroiliac ligament and the ventral sacroiliac ligament. Four points of interests were first picked on the sacrum and the ilium of both sides, followed by connecting the non-linear springs in a crisscross pattern. This pattern was used to mimic more of the ligaments sheet-like properties. For the sacrotuberous ligament, two non-linear springs per side were used. The ligament attachment sites were placed on the margins of the transverse processes of the third sacral and first caudal vertebrae, and the ischiatic tuberosities.
Figure 3Three-dimensional models displaying load scenario No. 5 for the dog pelvis (red arrow). (A) craniodorsal view; (B) cranioventral view. For this load scenario, 141.4 N was placed in the X direction and 141.4 N in the Y direction. The model was fixed in place at the level of the acetabulum.
Eight loading scenarios that were applied to the sacrum in the model.
| 1 | 0 | 200 |
| 2 | 0 | −200 |
| 3 | 200 | 0 |
| 4 | −200 | 0 |
| 5 | 141.4 | 141.4 |
| 6 | −141.4 | −141.4 |
| 7 | 141.4 | −141.4 |
| 8 | −141.4 | 141.4 |
Figure 4Deformation of the proposed canine pelvis model due to a 200 N force applied to the sacrum (load scenario 7). (A) dorsal 3D view of the pelvis prior to applied force. (B) dorsal 3D view of the pelvis with the applied force (141.4 N in the X direction and −141.4 N in the Y direction).
Figure 5Transverse (A) and dorsal planar (B) CT images illustrating an intra-articular ankylosis lesion in the left sacroiliac joint (arrows). The left and right sacroiliac joints also appear asymmetrical in size and shape. The transverse images are displayed with dorsal at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right. Dorsal planar images are displayed with cranial at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right.
Descriptive summary of clinical and computed tomography findings for the 22 Labrador retriever working dogs included in the sample.
| Breeder | 6 | 28–48 | 22.6–27.2 | 6 FI | 0.42 | 1.58 | 1.17 | 0 | 1.33 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Detection | 10 | 11–41 | 26–34 | 2 FI | 0.85 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.45 |
| Other | 6 | 14-32 | 19.1–29 | 1 FI | 1.58 | 1.75 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.58 | 1.17 | 1.08 |
kg, kilogram; CT, computed tomography; FI, female intact; FS, female spayed; MI, male intact; MN, male neutered; SCy, subchondral cyst; SE, subchondral erosion; SS, subchondral sclerosis; PAA, para-articular ankylosis; IAA, intra-articular ankylosis; SCl, subarticular cleft; IBS, intra-articular bone spur.
Figure 6Transverse (A) and dorsal planar (B) CT images illustrating a subarticular cleft lesion in the left sacroiliac joint (arrows). Subchondral erosion lesions are also evident in the right sacroiliac joint. The transverse images are displayed with dorsal at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right. Dorsal planar images are displayed with cranial at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right.
Figure 9Transverse (A) and dorsal planar (B) CT images illustrating a subchondral erosion lesion in the left sacroiliac joint (arrows). A subchondral sclerosis lesion is also evident surrounding the erosion. The transverse images are displayed with dorsal at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right. Dorsal planar images are displayed with cranial at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right.
Figure 10Transverse (A) and dorsal planar (B) CT images illustrating an intra-articular bone spur lesion in the right sacroiliac joint (arrows). The left and right sacroiliac joints are asymmetrical in shape and size. Subchondral erosion lesions are visible in both joints in the transverse view. The transverse images are displayed with dorsal at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right. Dorsal planar images are displayed with cranial at the top and the patient's left to the viewer's right.
Regression analysis results [slope estimate (95% confidence interval limits); p-value] for sacroiliac ligament strain values (dependent variable) vs. trial (independent variable) for each ligament (Dorsal Sacroiliac, Sacrotuberous, and Ventral Sacroiliac) on each side (L, R) for each of 8 scenarios.
| Dorsal sacroiliac | 1 | −0.001 (−0.004, 0.003); 0.6841 | 0 (−0.002, 0.001); 0.8539 |
| 2 | −0.002 (−0.007, 0.003); 0.3029 | 0.006 (0, 0.011); 0.058 | |
| 3 | −0.002 (−0.007, 0.004); 0.4442 | 0.006 (0, 0.011); 0.0511 | |
| 4 | −0.001 (−0.009, 0.007); 0.6946 | 0.001 (−0.001, 0.003); 0.3748 | |
| 5 | 0 (−0.006, 0.005); 0.809 | −0.002 (−0.004, 0.001); 0.1356 | |
| 6 | −0.002 (−0.009, 0.005); 0.4267 | 0.002 (−0.002, 0.005); 0.2197 | |
| 7 | −0.002 (−0.006, 0.003); 0.3843 | 0.006 (−0.001, 0.014); 0.0689 | |
| 8 | 0.001 (−0.002, 0.004); 0.2746 | 0 (−0.001, 0.001); 0.7566 | |
| Sacrotuberous | 1 | 0.001 (−0.001, 0.002); 0.1631 | 0.001 (−0.001, 0.003); 0.2797 |
| 2 | 0.001 (−0.004, 0.005); 0.572 | 0.001 (−0.003, 0.005); 0.6195 | |
| 3 | −0.001 (−0.003, 0.002); 0.5198 | 0 (−0.003, 0.002); 0.5664 | |
| 4 | 0.002 (−0.001, 0.005); 0.1488 | 0.002 (−0.001, 0.005); 0.1347 | |
| 5 | 0 (−0.004, 0.005); 0.8486 | 0 (−0.004, 0.005); 0.7552 | |
| 6 | 0.002 (−0.003, 0.008); 0.2248 | 0.002 (−0.002, 0.007); 0.1914 | |
| 7 | −0.001 (−0.004, 0.002); 0.4739 | −0.001 (−0.004, 0.002); 0.4105 | |
| 8 | 0.001 (0, 0.001); 0.138 | 0.001 (−0.001, 0.002); 0.2084 | |
| Ventral sacroiliac | 1 | −0.001 (−0.005, 0.003); 0.5834 | 0 (−0.003, 0.003); 0.8687 |
| 2 | 0 (−0.007, 0.007); 0.9036 | 0.004 (−0.01, 0.018); 0.396 | |
| 3 | −0.002 (−0.008, 0.003); 0.2856 | 0.004 (−0.006, 0.015); 0.2922 | |
| 4 | 0.002 (−0.008, 0.011); 0.602 | −0.002 (−0.007, 0.004); 0.4572 | |
| 5 | −0.001 (−0.005, 0.003); 0.3987 | −0.003 (−0.012, 0.007); 0.4644 | |
| 6 | 0.002 (−0.007, 0.011); 0.5244 | 0 (−0.009, 0.008); 0.8955 | |
| 7 | −0.002 (−0.008, 0.004); 0.2908 | 0.004 (−0.004, 0.013); 0.1929 | |
| 8 | 0.002 (0.001, 0.004); | −0.001 (−0.002, 0.001); 0.286 | |
and bold font indicates statistically significant difference; “Scenario” was defined as the different loading conditions (different forces placed on different axes). “Trial” was the entire process (segmentation, model creation, analysis including all 8 scenarios) each separated by a week.