Cartilage thickness and split-line pattern at the canine humeral trochlea

Summary

Objective: To characterise the humeral trochlea in middle to large breed dogs in respect to split-line pattern and cartilage thickness.

Methods: In 15 paired cadaveric elbow joints of mature dogs (>20 kg body weight) collagen network orientation of the hyaline cartilage of the humeral trochlea was visualised using a traditional split-line technique in which a dissecting needle dipped in India ink was inserted into the cartilage (n = 10). Cartilage thickness was measured radiographically on osteochondral plugs harvested at four representative locations within the joint surface of the humeral trochlea (n = 15).

Results: The joint surface of the humeral trochlea showed a distinct pattern of centripetally oriented split-lines with less pronounced or even absent split-lines caudoproximally towards the olecranon fossa. Median cartilage thickness at the canine humeral trochlea was 0.51 mm (interquartile range: 0.42 – 0.61 mm). Centrally, at the region where osteochondrosis lesions commonly occur in middle to large breed dogs, the median cartilage thickness was 0.55 mm (interquartile range: 0.48 – 0.62 mm).

Clinical significance: When focusing on anatomical joint resurfacing while performing osteochondral transplantation at the canine humeral trochlea, transplants should be implanted such that their split-lines are oriented centripetally. Hyaline cartilage thickness of transferred grafts should be in the range of half a millimetre to optimally match the situation at the canine humeral trochlea.

Keywords

Cartilage thickness - split-lines - humeral trochlea - dog - osteochondritis dissecans

• References

• 1 Böttcher P, Zeissler M, Winkels P. et al. Mosaicplasty in the elbow of a dog: Instrumentation and evaluation of achieved joint congruency by computed tomography and computed tomographic osteoabsorptiometry. Tierärztl Prax 2007; 35 K 253-260.
• 2 Fitzpatrick N, Yeadon R, Smith TJ. Early clinical experience with osteochondral autograft transfer for treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the medial humeral condyle in dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 246-260.
• 3 Hangody L, Vasarhelyi G, Hangody LR. et al. Autologous osteochondral grafting-technique and long-term results. Injury 2008; 39 (Suppl. 01) Suppl 32-39.
• 4 Böttcher P, Zeissler M, Maierl J. et al. Mapping of split-line pattern and cartilage thickness of selected donor and recipient sites for autologous osteochondral transplantation in the canine stifle joint. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 696-704.
• 5 Garner M, Altman D. Confidence intervals rather than P values. In Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T. et al. editors. Statistics with confidence. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2005. p 15-27.
• 6 Leo BM, Turner MA, Diduch DR. Split-line pattern and histologic analysis of a human osteochondral plug graft. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (Suppl. 02) Suppl 39-45.
• 7 Below S, Arnoczky SP, Dodds J. et al. The split-line pattern of the distal femur: A consideration in the orientation of autologous cartilage grafts. Arthroscopy 2002; 18: 613-617.
• 8 Woo SL, Akeson WH, Jemmott GF. Measurements of nonhomogeneous, directional mechanical properties of articular cartilage in tension. J Biomech 1976; 9: 785-791.
• 9 Bae WC, Wong VW, Hwang J. et al. Wear-lines and split-lines of human patellar cartilage: relation to tensile bio-mechanical properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16: 841-845.
• 10 Sasazaki Y, Shore R, Seedhom BB. Deformation and failure of cartilage in the tensile mode. J Anat 2006; 208: 681-694.
• 11 Kamalanathan S, Broom ND. The biomechanical ambiguity of the articular surface. J Anat 1993; 183: 567-578.
• 12 Bellucci G, Seedhom BB. Mechanical behaviour of articular cartilage under tensile cyclic load. Rheumatology 2001; 40: 1337-1345.
• 13 Thaunat M, Couchon S, Lunn J. et al. Cartilage thickness matching of selected donor and recipient sites for osteochondral autografting of the medial femoral condyle. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15: 381-386.
• 14 Terukina M, Fujioka H, Yoshiya S. et al. Analysis of the thickness and curvature of articular cartilage of the fe-moral condyle. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 969-973.
• 15 Li G, Park SE, DeFrate LE. et al. The cartilage thickness distribution in the tibiofemoral joint and its correlation with cartilage-to-cartilage contact. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005; 20: 736-744.
• 16 Huberti HH, Hayes WC. Patellofemoral contact pressures. The influence of q-angle and tendofemoral contact. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 715-724.
• 17 Li G, Lopez O, Rubash H. Variability of a three-dimensional finite element model constructed using magnetic resonance images of a knee for joint contact stress analysis. J Biomech Eng 2001; 123: 341-346.
• 18 Hurtig M, Pearce S, Warren S. et al. Arthroscopic mosaic arthroplasty in the equine third carpal bone. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 228-239.
• 19 Hangody L, Rathonyi GK, Duska Z. et al. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86A (Suppl. 01) Suppl 65-72.
• 20 von Rechenberg B, Akens MK, Nadler D. et al. Changes in subchondral bone in cartilage resurfacing – an experimental study in sheep using different types of osteochondral grafts. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003; 11: 265-277.