Skip to main content
StreamVetree
Sign in
OrthopedicsCase series / Retrospective2 min read · distilled by Vetree AI

Measurements of radial angulation using computer-aided design software provide equal or superior reliability to multiplanar computed tomographic reconstruction in dogs.

Stoneburner RM, Lassinger LB, Hayes G, Bleedorn JA, Karlin WM, Marcellin-Little DJ, Tinga S · American Journal of Veterinary Research · 24 June 2026

Clinical bottom line

CAD and MPR radial measurements are not interchangeable; method-specific reference values are essential for surgical planning.

Summary

This retrospective study compared two methods of measuring radial bone geometry in dogs using CT imaging: computer-aided design (CAD) software and multiplanar reconstruction (MPR). Ten right-sided thoracic limbs from normal dogs scanned between January 2018 and March 2023 were analyzed by a single observer in triplicate across frontal (proximal and distal), sagittal, and torsional planes. Key findings revealed poor agreement between CAD and MPR measurements across all planes, with clinically significant differences in proximal frontal angulation — CAD yielded a median of 3.6° valgus versus -6.8° varus with MPR — likely attributable to differences in anatomical landmarks used by each method. Regarding reliability, CAD demonstrated excellent intraobserver reliability for sagittal and distal frontal angulation measurements, while MPR showed only moderate reliability for sagittal and poor reliability for distal frontal angulation. Both methods performed comparably for proximal frontal and torsional measurements. These findings indicate that CAD-derived measurements should not be considered interchangeable with MPR-derived measurements, as systematic biases exist between the two techniques. Clinicians and surgeons using CAD software for preoperative planning of corrective osteotomies must understand that published normative data or surgical targets established using MPR may not directly apply when using CAD-based workflows. This study supports the adoption of CAD methods for their superior or equivalent reliability, while emphasizing the need for method-specific reference values in clinical practice.

OrthopedicsRadiologySmall Animal

This summary was distilled by AI and may occasionally misinterpret data. Confirm critical details with the primary literature before clinical application.