A retrospective study of the short-term complication rate following 750 elective elbow arthroscopies

Summary

Arthroscopy is the gold standard for articular surface examination and is commonly advocated for diagnosing and treating cases of canine elbow dysplasia. Arthroscopy is generally regarded as a low-risk procedure, however there is a paucity of information in the small animal veterinary literature regarding the associated complication rates. In a retrospective study spanning a ten year period, 750 elective elbow arthroscopies were evaluated. Complications necessitating repeat surgery were defined as major, and were documented in 4.8% of dogs. Minor perioperative complications occurred in 17.1% dogs. The failure of arthroscopic treatment necessitating unplanned conversion to arthrotomy was the most frequently encountered complication in this category, having been reported in five percent of dogs. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 10.7% dogs; these included a worsened postoperative lameness (5.5%), severe pain (2.8%), severe swelling (2%), infection (0.2%), and neurapraxia (0.2%). A total of 204 dogs returned for a postoperative re-examination and in seven percent, lameness was more severe than that noted preoperatively. The results of the study show that the major complication rate associated with elective elbow arthroscopy is low, but that the minor peri- and postoperative complication rate is concerning. These findings will assist veterinarians in their preoperative discussions with owners to ensure the achievement of informed consent.

Keywords

Elbow arthroscopy - complication - medial - coronoid disease - dog

• References

• 1 Trostel CT, McLaughlin RM, Pool RR. Canine lameness caused by developmental orthopaedic diseases: fragmented medial coronoid process and ununited anconeal process. Cont Educ Vet Sm Anim 2003; 25: 112-121.
• 2 Rezende CMF, Melo EG, Malm C. et al. Arthroscopical treatment of elbow joint disease. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 2012; 64: 9-14.
• 3 Capaldo F, Kapatkin A, Gilley R. Diagnostic and surgical applications of arthroscopy in dogs: general applications and forelimb joint diseases. Cont Educ Vet Sm Anim 2005; 27: 580-594.
• 4 Ridge PA. A retrospective study of the rate of postoperative septic arthritis following 353 elective arthroscopies. J Small Anim Pract 2011; 52: 200-202.
• 5 Van Ryssen B, van Bree H, Missinne S. Succesful arthroscopic treatment of shoulder osteochondrosis in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1993; 34: 521-528.
• 6 Meyer-Lindenberg A, Langhann A, Fehr M. et al. Arthrotomy versus arthroscopy in the treatment of the fragmented medial coronoid process of the ulna (FCP) in 421 dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumat 2003; 16: 204-210.
• 7 Clements DN, Owen MR, Mosley JR. et al. Retrospective study of bacterial infective arthritis in 31 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2005; 46: 171-176.
• 8 Goodrich LR, McIlwraith CW. Complications associated with equine arthroscopy. Vet Clin North Am Equine 2008; 24: 573-589.
• 9 Kelly ED, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg 2001; 83: 25-34.
• 10 Houlton JEF, Collinson RW. Arthroscopically assisted surgery of the elbow joint. In: Manual of Small Animal Arthrology. Quedgeley: British Small Animal Veterinary Association; 1994. p. 1994-51.
• 11 Tatarunas AC, Matera JM. Arthroscopic study of the elbow joint in dog cadavers. Acta Cir Bras 2006; 21: 362-365.
• 12 Steinmann SP. Elbow arthroscopy: where are we now?. Arthroscopy: J Arth Rel Surg 2007; 23: 1231-1236.
• 13 Wolf RE, Scavelli TD, Hoelzler MG. et al. Surgical and postoperative complications associated with tibial tuberosity advancement for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: 458 cases (2007-2009). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240: 1481-1487.
• 14 Burton NJ, Owen MR, Kirk LS. et al. Conservative versus arthroscopic management for medial coronoid process disease in dogs: A prospective gait evaluation. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 972-980.
• 15 Cook JL, Cook CR. Bilateral shoulder and elbow arthroscopy in dogs with forelimb lameness: diagnostic findings and treatment outcomes. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 224-232.
• 16 Kirberger RM, Fourie SL. Elbow dysplasia in the dog: pathophysiology, diagnosis and control. J S African Vet Assoc 1998; 69: 43-54.
• 17 Van Ryssen B, van Bree H. Arthroscopic findings in 100 dogs with elbow lameness. Vet Rec 1997; 140: 360-362.
• 18 Constantinescu GM, Constantinescu IA. A cinically orientated comprehensive pictorial review of canine elbow anatomy. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 135-143.
• 19 O’Driscoll SW, Morrey BF. Arthroscopy of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74: 84-94.
• 20 Lynch G, Meyers J, Whipple T. et al. Neurovascular anatomy and elbow arthroscopy: Inherent risks. Arthroscopy 1986; 2: 191-197.
• 21 Lewis DD, McCarthy RJ, Pechman RD. Diagnosis of common developmental orthopedic conditions in canine pediatric patients. Cont EducVet Sm Anim 1992; 14: 287-301.