Well, with respect, if I was a breeder I would certainly be concerned about, and want to discuss, any reports suggesting different positioning of dogs' heads for MRI scanning may give different results. I would want to know when I'd spent time and effort (and money) having my breeding stock scanned, that I was getting the most accurate result possible, otherwise it wouldn't be much use in any breeding decisions I had to make, would it?
Or am I missing something here?
Rosemary
Well, yes, actually you are
-- I'd say misunderstanding something though, rather then “missing” something – the "accuracy" of the scan, as far as breeders are concerned (as they are primarily scanning to get a grade) has little to do with the question about head positioning (indeed, if breeders wanted the most
accurate results, they would choose neurologists with the most up to date scanning machines, who followed the head positioning protocol for consistency of interpretation for the scanning certificates).
So it isn't a matter of anyone spending money and not getting quality results. The very same breeders, many of whom chose to use scanning programs that used older, lower quality MRI machines, or shorter exposure MRIs, would have a more legitimate concern about the quality of their scans on such machines, as they are well aware, because their scans are already considered substandard for the BVA/KC scanning program. This issue of the quality of the scan was actually raised at various times so it isn't as if some of the informed club people were not aware when they made the choice of where to scan, and certainly there were people on the club committee over time who also were aware of this issue and chose not to discuss it at club level, apparently.
Clare Rusbridge actually raised the issue of the quality of scans obtained with certain scanning methods a long time ago, and has a document on this issue for vets on her website. I would think that the issue of the
quality of the scan–
which could actually make it look as if a syrinx doesn't exist, when one does–is of far greater importance than the issue of head positioning and herniation:
http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/sm_screening_vets.htm
The position of the head only relates to how much herniation Is seen, and the view of the space between the back of the brain (cerebellum) and the brainstem:
Cerebellar herniation and CSF space between the cerebellum and the brainstem were larger in a flexed head position.
.
Herniation is not a consideration for how a dog is graded for breeding purposes or for how it will be graded under the proposed BVA/KC MRI scheme. CM is only noted as being there, or not there, on the certs -- the degree of CM doesn't influence the grades. As far as I understand, it also would have little influence on any decision about whether to do decompression surgery or not. And it certainly would not influence decisions about medications. It is an alternative way of viewing herniation etc., but I think it would be disputable whether one way of looking at things is better or more useful than another. Herniation is not even seen as a major determinant of pain or of the seriousness of this condition–all the studies have so far have indicated the primary determinant of pain is the width of a syrinx and whether it is symmetrical or asymmetrical. (I am not saying it is irrelevant, but it certainly is not as great a concern as whether there's a syrinx or not.)
So basically, this is a huge drama being created to do precisely what it has succeeded in doing for you –totally confused the issues to make it seem as if this is some massive matter for dispute, and as if there is some criticism to be made about particular approaches to scanning, when actually it is a pretty minor consideration and has already been discussed, as far as I understand, in relation to the stalled BVA/KC scanning scheme that the Cavalier club has roadblocked for months.