Computed tomographic morphometry of the lumbosacral spine of dogs
Authors: Jones Jeryl C. , Wright James C. , Bartels Jan E. 
Published: January 2024

In a 5-year prospective study, computed tomographic (ct) morphometry of the lumbosacral vertebral canal was performed on 42 large-breed dogs (21 controls and 21 dogs with lumbosacral stenosis). Dogs were allotted to 4 groups. Group 1 (n = 13) consisted of cadaver specimens obtained from dogs that died or were euthanatized for reasons unrelated to the spine; group 2 (n = 8) consisted of live dogs with no history of clinical signs related to the spine and with normal neurologic examination findings; group 3 (n = 10) consisted of dogs with surgically confirmed lumbosacral stenosis; and group 4 (n = 11) consisted of dogs with suspected lumbosacral stenosis that were managed conservatively. The ct scans were performed, using 5-mm contiguous slices obtained perpendicular to the vertebral canal, from the midbody of the 5th lumbar vertebra through the caudal endplate of the sacrum (L5-S3). Lumbosacral lordosis was minimized in all dogs by positioning them in dorsal recumbency with the hind limbs flexed. A tuberculin syringe calibration phantom was placed within the scanning field of view, parallel to the axis of the spine. In each dog, 11 ct slice locations within the lumbosacral spine were evaluated. At each slice location, sagittal plane diameter, dorsal plane diameter, and transverse area of the vertebral canal, vertebral body, and calibration phantom were measured, using the ct computer's software programs for distance and area calculation. Window/level settings were constant, and all measurements were made by the same operator (JCJ). Accuracy of calibration phantom ct measurements was 100 % for sagittal and dorsal plane diameter and was 85 % for transverse area.

In control dogs (groups 1 and 2), vertebral canal dimensions were significantly (r ≥ 0.50, P ≤ 0.0001 ) correlated with vertebral body dimensions, but not with dog weight or age. There were no significant differences between group 1 vs group 2, and group 3 vs group 4 for all absolute vertebral canal dimensions and for 5 ratios of vertebral canal to correlated vertebral body dimensions (general linear model for anova). Pooled control dogs (n = 21 ) and those with lumbosacral stenosis (n = 21 ) were compared, and significant differences were not identified for absolute canal dimensions. Significant differences between control dogs and those with lumbosacral stenosis were identified in the ratios of vertebral canal transverse area to vertebral body sagittal diameter (P ≤ 0.01 ) and vertebral canal transverse area to vertebral body transverse area (P ≤ 0.001 ). For both these ratios, analysis by slice location identified significant differences (P < 0.05 ) between pooled groups at the caudal pedicles of L5 and L6. For the ratio of transverse canal area to sagittal vertebral body diameter, differences (P ≤ 0.05 ) also were found at the cranial pedicle of L7. These results indicate that: ct is an accurate method for performing morphometry of the canine lumbosacral spine; vertebral canal dimensions can be corrected for differences in dog size by calculating ratios of vertebral canal to vertebral body dimensions; statistical comparisons, using such corrected vertebral canal dimensions, may reveal differences not evident when absolute vertebral canal dimensions are used; and corrected transverse area of the vertebral canal differs in large-breed dogs with lumbosacral stenosis vs normal controls. Morphometric differences identified at more than 1 vertebral level support a theory that multilevel congenital or developmental stenosis of the lumbosacral vertebral canal may be a predisposing or contributing factor in large -breed dogs with acquired lumbosacral stenosis.