Management of tibia fracture by open reduction internal fixation and minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis in dogs

DIKSHA  DHIMAN; AMIT  KUMAR; S P  TYAGI; ADARSH  KUMAR; STANZIN; SIDHARTH  SINGH; SANKALP  MAHABALESH; ROHIT  KUMAR; SUKHPREET  SINGH

doi:10.56093/ijans.v94i12.149899

Authors

DIKSHA DHIMAN Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
AMIT KUMAR Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
S P TYAGI Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
ADARSH KUMAR Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
STANZIN Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
SIDHARTH SINGH Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
SANKALP MAHABALESH Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
ROHIT KUMAR Dr G C Negi College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (CSKHPKV), Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062 India
SUKHPREET SINGH Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Punjab, Punjab

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v94i12.149899

Keywords:

Dog, Fracture repair, Minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), Tibia

Abstract

In the present study, tibia fracture in dogs were repaired by using two different fixation techniques, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF, Group 1, n=11) and minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO, Group 2, n=8). Various factors such as age, bodyweight, fracture type, soft tissue trauma, severity, post-operative care and fixation technique governs fracture healing. Majority of the factors were kept similar other than fixation technique, for an unbiased comparison between the two treatment groups, i.e. ORIF and MIPO. The mean duration of surgery was significantly more in group 1 (ORIF, 107.7±6.61) whereas it was nearly half of the time in group 2 (MIPO, 31.8±4.12). No significant difference between the fracture gap, plate length, plate bridging ratio and plate span ratio was noticed in the two groups. The working length of plates applied in the MIPO group (45.7±2.4) was longer than in the ORIF group (23.2±4.96) and there was statistically significant difference in the screw density between both the groups. Fractured tibia was 4.8% shorter than contralateral limb in MIPO group whereas in ORIF group fractured limb was 3.2% shorter than the contralateral limb. The MIPO group showed an early ambulation, i.e. 5.24±0.63 days in comparison to ORIF group (11.60±2.8 days). The radiographic time to union (days) was shorter in group 2 (MIPO, 38.1±12.5) as compare to group 1 (ORIF, 76.2±10.34).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baroncelli A B, Peirone B, Winter M D, Reese D J and Pozzi A. 2012. Retrospective comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open plating for tibial fractures in dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 25(05): 410–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3415/VCOT-11-07-0097

Brinker W O. 1957. Fractures in Canine Surgery, 4th Edition. (Eds.) Mayer K, Lacroix J V and Hoskins H P. American Veterinary Publications, Santa Barbara.

Egol K A, Kubiak E N, Fulkerson E, Kummer F J and Koval K J. 2004. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 18(8): 488–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200409000-00003

Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Guy P and Tscherne H. 1999. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: Does percutaneous plating disrupt femoral blood supply less than the traditional technique? Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 13: 401–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199908000-00002

Field J R and Tornkvist H. 2001 Biological fracture fixation: A perspective. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 14: 169–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1632694

Gautier E and Sommer C 2003. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 34: 63–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.026

Guiot L P and Déjardin L M. 2011. Prospective evaluation of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in 36 nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Veterinary Surgery 40(2): 171–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00783.x

Hudson C C, Pozzi A and Lewis D D. 2009. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: Applications and techniques in dogs and cats. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 22: 175–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3415/VCOT-08-06-0050

Kowaleski M P. 2012. Minimally invasive osteosynthesis techniques of the femur. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 42: 997–1022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2012.07.005

Miller D L and Goswami T. 2007. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clinical Biomechanics 22(10): 1049–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.004

Moses P A, Lewis D D, Lanz O I, Stubbs W P, Cross A R and Smith K R. 2002. Intramedullary interlocking nail stabilization of 21 humeral fractures in 19 dogs and one cat. Australian Veterinary Journal 80(6): 336–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2002.tb14781.x

Oe K, Miwa M, Sakai Y, Lee S Y, Kuroda R and Kurosaka M. 2007. An in-vitro study demonstrating that haematomas found at the site of human fractures contain progenitor cells with multilineage capacity. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Br) 89: 133–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B1.18286

Palmer R H. 2000. Pre-operative decision making: The fracture patient assessment score (FPAS). 9th Annual Complete Course in External Skeletal Fixation. Pp. 52–58.

Piermattei D L and Greeley R G. 1997. An Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones of the Dog and Cat. 2nd Edn. W B Saunders, Philadelphia.

Piermattei D L, Johnson K A and Science Direct (Online service). 2004. An Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat, pp. xii+ 400. Philadelphia, Saunders.

Pozzi A, Hudson C C, Gauthier C M and Lewis D D. 2012. Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and internal fixation of radius-ulna fractures in dogs. Veterinary Surgery 42: 19–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2012.01009.x

Rahman M M, Jeong I S and Kim N S. 2017. Application of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis to tibial shaft fractures in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Clinics 34(3): 200–03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2017.06.34.3.200

Schmokel H G, Hurter K and Schawalder P. 2003. Percutaneous plating of tibial fractures in two dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics Traumatology 16(3): 191–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1632776

Sommer C, Schütz M and Wagner M. 2007. Principles of the internal fixator, pp. 1103. (Eds) Rüedi T P, Buckley R and Moran C G. AO Principles of Fracture Management. Thieme, Stuttgart,

Whelan D B, Bhandari M, McKee M D, Guyatt G H, Kreder H J, Stephen D and Schemitsch E H. 2002. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of the healing of tibial fractures after intramedullary fixation. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume 84(1): 15–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B1.0840015

Wilson J W. 1974. An anterior approach to the tibia. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 10: 67.

Zaal M D and Hazewinkel H A.1996. Classifications of 202 tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Tijdschrift Voor Diergeneeskunde 121(8): 218–23.