Elbow Arthrodesis Using a Medially Positioned Plate in 6 DogsFunding None.
22 November 2018
30 June 2019
30 August 2019 (online)
Objective The aim of this study was to report the surgical technique, associated complications and clinical outcome of elbow arthrodesis using a medially positioned plate.
Study Design This was a retrospective case series.
Results Six cases met the inclusion criteria. In all cases, the elbow was approached medially without the requirement for ulnar osteotomy. A non-locking 2.7/3.5- mm pre-contoured elbow arthrodesis plate was applied in 5/6 cases and a 2.0-mm String of Pearls plate applied in one case. The mean angle of arthrodesis was 118° (range: 113–130°). One major intraoperative complication occurred. Three minor and 3 major postoperative complications occurred. Postoperative imaging was available for 5/6 cases. Complete arthrodesis was confirmed by imaging in 4/5 cases, partial progression of arthrodesis was documented in 1/5 cases and no further images were deemed necessary. Postoperative Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs score was available for two cases with scores of 20/52 and 10/52, respectively. Subjective outcomes in the remaining three cases were rated as acceptable more than 1 year postoperatively.
Conclusion Positioning the plate medially for elbow arthrodesis simplified the surgical approach, could be performed with a pre-contoured plate and allowed successful revision of an arthrodesis previously stabilized with a caudally positioned plate. The cases in this series had acceptable outcomes despite a high risk of complications.
Keywordselbow - arthrodesis - medial plate - angle of arthrodesis - outcome of elbow arthrodesis - dogs
Jessica McCarthy is the primary author, Eithne J. Comerford contributed to manuscript review and editing, and image review. John F. Innes—contributed to manuscript review and editing, case management and performed the procedure. Rob A. Pettitt—contributed to conception of manuscript, supervised manuscript preparation, manuscript review and editing, case management and performed the procedure.
- 1 Johnston S, Tobias K. Veterinary Surgery Small Animal. 2nd ed. Canada: Elsevier; 2018
- 2 Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Treatment. 5th ed. Missouri: WB Saunders Co.; 2016
- 3 De Haan J, Roe S, Lewis D, Renberg W, Kerwin S, Bebchuk T. Elbow arthrodesis in twelve dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9 (03) 25-28
- 4 Choate CJ, Arnold GA. Elbow arthrodesis following a pathological fracture in a dog with bilateral humeral bone cysts. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (05) 398-401
- 5 McLaughlin R. Arthrodesis. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1998: 247-254
- 6 Penwick RC. Arthrodesis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987; 17 (04) 821-840
- 7 Cook JL, Payne JT. Surgical treatment of osteoarthritis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1997; 27 (04) 931-944
- 8 Hume MC, Wiss DA. Olecranon fractures. A clinical and radiographic comparison of tension band wiring and plate fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (285) 229-235
- 9 Macko D, Szabo RM. Complications of tension-band wiring of olecranon fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67 (09) 1396-1401
- 10 Cook JL, Evans R, Conzemius MG. , et al. Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (08) 905-908
- 11 Benamou J, Demianiuk RM, Rutherford S. , et al. Effect of bending direction on the mechanical behaviour of 3.5 mm String-of-Pearls and Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate constructs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28 (06) 433-440
- 12 Muir P, Johnson KA, Markel MD. Area moment of inertia for comparison of implant cross-sectional geometry and bending stiffness. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8 (03) 24-30
- 13 Johnson KA. Piermattei's Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013: 250-251
- 14 Berg R, Egger EL. In vitro comparison of the three loop pulley and locking loop suture patterns for repair of canine weightbearing tendons and collateral ligaments. Vet Surg 1986; 15 (01) 107-110
- 15 Walton B, Cox T, Innes J. ‘How do I know my animal got better?’ – measuring outcomes in small animal orthopaedics. In Pract 2018; 40 (02) 42-50
- 16 Milgram J, Slonim E, Kass PH, Shahar R. A radiographic study of joint angles in standing dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17 (02) 82-90
- 17 Watson C, Rochat M, Payton M. Effect of weight bearing on the joint angles of the fore- and hind limb of the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16 (04) 250-254
- 18 Halling KB, Lewis DD, Cross AR, Kerwin SC, Smith BA, Kubilis PS. Complication rate and factors affecting outcome of olecranon osteotomies repaired with pin and tension-band fixation in dogs. Can Vet J 2002; 43 (07) 528-534
- 19 Palmer RH, Aron DN, Chambers JN. A combined tension band and lag screw technique for fixation of olecranon osteotomies. Vet Surg 1988; 17 (06) 328-332
- 20 Meeson RL, Davidson C, Arthurs GI. Soft-tissue injuries associated with cast application for distal limb orthopaedic conditions. A retrospective study of sixty dogs and cats. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (02) 126-131
- 21 Bristow PC, Meeson RL, Thorne RM. , et al. Clinical comparison of the hybrid dynamic compression plate and the castless plate for pancarpal arthrodesis in 219 dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (01) 70-77
- 22 Nielsen C, Pluhar GE. Outcome following surgical repair of Achilles tendon rupture and comparison between postoperative tibiotarsal immobilization methods in dogs: 28 cases (1997-2004). Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19 (04) 246-249
- 23 Griffon D, Hamaide A. Complications in Small Animal Surgery. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2016