An estimated, a priori sample size for this study indicated that, between 60–120 observations (8–15 dogs) were required, with a significance level of 5% and power of 80%. This calculation assumed a proportion of agreement under the null hypothesis between 0.80 and 0.85, and the expected difference between two proportions of agreement of the null and alternative hypothesis to be between 0.10–0.15.
An ethics proposal of protocols was submitted to and approved by the CVS ethical review board (number CVS-2022-016). Data was collected as part of clinical investigations into Pug dogs presenting with signs of T3-L3 myelopathy and consent was gained from their caregivers prior to these investigations.
This was a retrospective case-controlled series. The practice electronic patient database (Robovet, Covetrus, v.5.53) was searched for Pug dogs presenting with thoracolumbar myelopathy from 2020–2022. These were then each searched for the inclusion criteria of MRI T2W-TSE sequences in sagittal and transverse plains, VIBE sequences and CT including CAP from T10-L1. Patients were excluded if they had an imaging diagnoses affecting articular process morphology i.e., osteolytic/productive lesions related to suspect spinal neoplastic, inflammatory, or infectious disease or if there were vertebral body malformations resulting in significant kyphoscoliosis in caudal thoracic region.
MRI sequences were randomised, and patient details blinded to the observer. Each observer received training on the definition of normal, hypoplastic and aplastic CAP and was shown example CT images as shown in Fig. 1. and then classified each CAP in T2W-TSE and VIBE sequences as normal, hypoplastic, or aplastic as shown in Fig. 2. The primary observer then reviewed CT imaging and classified each CAP, and this was used as the control.
Figure 1: CT images of a a) normal b) hypoplastic and c) aplastic CAP.
This was provided to observers prior to MRI assessment as an example of normal, hypoplastic and aplastic CAPs.
Figure 2: VIBE and T2W-TSE images of vertebral morphology: a) aplastic CAP, b) hypoplastic c) normal).
All MRI sequences were performed using a high field system (1.5 Tesla Siemens Magnetom Essenza) with patients anaesthetised and positioned in dorsal recumbency. T2W-TSE sequence slice thickness 3mm, matrix 204x834, field of view 146 x 180, VIBE slice thickness 1mm, matrix 460x512, field of view 190x190, phase field of view 100, slice over sampling 100, flip angle 12, averages 2.
CT of the entire spine was performed using a 16-slice Siemens Somatom scope CT scanner with patients under anaesthesia in sternal recumbency. A bone algorithm window was used for reconstruction of images in 3D for control analysis of caudal articular process. Total mAs 5580, kVp 130, DLP 486, tube rotation time was 0.8 seconds, slice thickness 0.75mm.
Statistical analysis:
Overall percentage agreement and percentage agreement by category will be reported and compared using a McNemar chi-squared test and a P value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant.
The kappa statistic was be used to assess agreement of observer categorisations of the 2 MRI sequences. A zero value of Kappa indicates no agreement above that expected by chance, a value of 1 indicates perfect agreement and a negative value indicates agreement worse than that expected by chance.
The sensitivity and specificity of the two MRI methods to identify abnormal CAP classifications will be reported, in respect to CT as the gold standard.
Qualitative/descriptive data will be presented as count numbers and percentages.