JVD 2013 #2 - Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses Flashcards
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
What was performed in this study?
comparison of skull rads and CT findings in 21 patients
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
How many cases did rads show bone involvement?
how many were exclusivey osteolytic?
17/21 bone involvement
15/21 exclusively osteolytic
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
How many cases did CT show bone involvement?
How many were exclusively osteolytic?
bone involvement 20/21 (95%)
exclusively osteolytic in 18 of these
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
What proportion of radiographs showed invasion of adjacent structures?
What proportion of CT’s showed invasion of adjacent structures?
30% of rads
90% of CT’s
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
What structure was CT particularly good at assessing, and rads particularly terrible?
the orbit.
10 dogs showed orbital invasion on CT and 0 showed on rads
According to Carolina O. Ghirelli; Lenin A. Villamizar; Ana Carolina B.C. Fonseca Pinto in
Comparison of Standard Radiography and Computed Tomography in 21 Dogs with Maxillary Masses,
Which is better for assessing the extent and involvement of maxillary masses?
CT
:)
Confidence booster question!
