Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31(06): 458-472
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1673339
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Radiological Evaluation of TATE Elbow Cartridge Position in Dogs

Anna E. Nutt
1   University of Bristol School of Veterinary Sciences, Small Animal Referral Hospital, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom
,
Thomas A. Shaw
1   University of Bristol School of Veterinary Sciences, Small Animal Referral Hospital, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom
,
Toby G. Knowles
1   University of Bristol School of Veterinary Sciences, Small Animal Referral Hospital, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom
,
Neil J. Burton
2   Wear Referrals, Bradbury, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding Purchase of experimental materials and equipment used in the study was kindly funded by Langford Veterinary Services.
Further Information

Publication History

29 July 2017

16 July 2018

Publication Date:
23 October 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of varying elbow flexion angle and elbow orientation on the radiological measurement of component position for first (1G) and second-generation (2G) TATE elbow cartridges, and to test intra/inter-observer variability of measurements.

Materials and Methods A cadaveric thoracic limb was implanted with a 1G then 2G cartridge, and mounted in lateral recumbency on an acrylic platform. The platform was tilted by set increments up to 10° in both planes, and radiographs were performed at each angle before repeating with the limb in caudocranial positioning. A deterministic trigonometric model was used to show how component angles should vary with changes in orientation, and these were compared with those measured by two observers. Humeral component angle (HCA), radioulnar component angle, varus/valgus cartridge alignment angle and the cartridge height:isthmus width ratio (CIR) were evaluated. Angles within 5° of the zero degrees inclination angle and ratios within 0.2 of the zero degrees inclination ratio were defined as acceptable.

Results Observer component angles for both cartridges were accurate and precise for inclinations up to 10° except for HCA during adduction/abduction. The CIR values were within the acceptable limit for inclinations up to 7.5° in both planes.

Clinical Significance Acceptable limits of limb inclination during positioning for TATE elbow replacement cartridge assessment were defined. All component measurements were sufficiently accurate and precise to be considered for evaluation of component position in clinical cases.

Keywords

canine total elbow replacement - TATE - component positioning - evaluation - radiological

Authors Contribution

All authors contributed to conception of study, study design, and acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Johnson JA, Austin C, Breur GJ. Incidence of canine appendicular musculoskeletal disorders in 16 veterinary teaching hospitals from 1980 through 1989. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 2: 5-18
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grøndalen J. Arthrosis in the elbow joint of young rapidly growing dogs. III. Ununited medical coronoid process of the ulna and osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral condyle. Surgical procedure for correction and postoperative investigation. Nord Vet Med 1979; 31 (12) 520-527
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Theyse LF, Voorhout G, Hazewinkel HA. Prognostic factors in treating antebrachial growth deformities with a lengthening procedure using a circular external skeletal fixation system in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34 (05) 424-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Macpherson GC, Lewis DD, Johnson KA. , et al. Fragmented coronoid process associated with premature distal radial physeal closure in four dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 3: 8-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gordon WJ, Besancon MF, Conzemius MG. , et al. Frequency of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in dogs after repair of a humeral condylar fracture. Vet Surg 2003; 16: 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Evans RB, Gordon-Evans WJ, Conzemius MG. Comparison of three methods for the management of fragmented medial coronoid process in the dog. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21 (02) 106-109
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wendelburg KM, Beale BS. Medium and long term evaluation of sliding humeral osteotomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (07) 804-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McConkey MJ, Valenzano DM, Wei A. , et al. Effect of the proximal abducting ulnar osteotomy on intra-articular pressure distribution and contact mechanics of congruent and incongruent canine elbows ex vivo. Vet Surg 2016; 45 (03) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Caron A, Fitzpatrick N. Bi-oblique dynamic proximal ulnar osteotomy: surgical technique and clinical outcome in 86 dogs. Vet Surg 2016; 45 (03) 356-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lewis RH. Development of elbow arthroplasty (canine) clinical trials. Proceedings from the 6th Annual ACVS Symposium; October 1996; San Francisco, United States. pp 110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Conzemius MG, Aper RL, Hill CM. Evaluation of a canine total-elbow arthroplasty system: a preliminary study in normal dogs. Vet Surg 2001; 30 (01) 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Conzemius MG, Aper RL, Corti LB. Short-term outcome after total elbow arthroplasty in dogs with severe, naturally occurring osteoarthritis. Vet Surg 2003; 32 (06) 545-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wendelburg K, Tepic S. Kyon elbow prosthesis project. Proceedings from the Kyon Symposium; April 15–17, 2011; Boston, United States
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Innes JF. Complications with Iowa State TER and how this has informed development of the Sirius Total Elbow Replacement. Proceedings from the British Veterinary Orthopaedic Association Autumn Meeting; November 18–20, 2011; Bristol, United Kingdom. pp.67–72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schulz KS, Cook JL, Karnes J. Canine unicompartmental elbow arthroplasty system. Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACVS Symposium; 2011 November 3–5; Chicago, United States. 123–125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Acker R, Van Der Meulen G, Sidebotham CA. Preliminary evaluation of the TATE Elbow total arthroplasty system in client owned dogs. Proceedings of the 14th European Society of Veterinary Orthopaedics & Traumatology Congress; September 10–14, 2008; Munich, Germany. pp. 13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 De Sousa RJ, Parsons KJ, Owen MR. , et al. Radiographic, surgeon and owner assessment of the BioMedtrix TATE(®) elbow arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2016; 45 (06) 726-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lenoir H, Micallef JP, Djerbi I. , et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: influence of implant positioning on functional outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101 (06) 721-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nelson LL, Dyce J, Shott S. Risk factors for ventral luxation in canine total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (07) 644-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dyce J, Wisner ER, Schrader SC, Wang Q, Olmstead ML. Radiographic evaluation of acetabular component position in dogs. Vet Surg 2001; 30 (01) 28-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dargel J, Oppermann J, Brüggemann GP, Eysel P. Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111 (51–52): 884-890
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dyce J, Wisner ER, Wang Q, Olmstead ML. Evaluation of risk factors for luxation after total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (06) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Roe SC, Sidebotham C, Marcellin-Little DJ. Acetabular cup liner and prosthetic head exchange to increase the head diameter for management of recurrent luxation of a prosthetic hip in two dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28 (01) 60-66
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Renwick A, Gemmill T, Pink J, Brodbelt D, McKee M. Radiographic evaluation of BFX acetabular component position in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40 (05) 610-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wood MC, Fox DB, Tomlinson JL. Determination of the mechanical axis and joint orientation lines in the canine humerus: a radiographic cadaveric study. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (04) 414-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Burton NJ, Ellis JR, Burton KJ, Wallace AM, Colborne GR. An ex vivo investigation of the effect of the TATE canine elbow arthroplasty system on kinematics of the elbow. J Small Anim Pract 2013; 54 (05) 240-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 van der Lugt JC, Rozing PM. Systematic review of primary total elbow prostheses used for the rheumatoid elbow. Clin Rheumatol 2004; 23 (04) 291-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dejardin L, Guillou R. Surgical Technique. In: Proceedings of BioMedtrix TATE Elbow Workshop; April 25, 2009; Glasgow, United Kingdom
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Paley D. Normal lower limb alignment and joint orientation. In: Paley D, Herzenberg JE. , eds. Principles of Deformity Correction. Berlin: Springer; 2002: 1-18
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar