Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10(02): 95-100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632577
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Biomechanical Comparison of Standard Excisional Hip Arthroplasty and Modified Deep Gluteal Muscle Transfer Excisional Arthroplasty

R. T. Dueland
1   From the Comparative Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
,
S. Dogan
2   Department of Medicine, Neurology and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
,
R. Vanderby
3   Division of Orthopedic Surgery School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received for publication 12 May 1996

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

A comparison of hind limb weight-bearing for standard hip excision (EX) vs. modified deep gluteal excision (MDG) was performed in sixteen hips of eight dogs. Using force plated technology, maximum vertical force was determined in each hind limb at a walk before and at two and four months after the operation. Recovery with both techniques was 67% at two months and 84% at four months after the operation. In conclusion, transfer of a portion of the deep gluteal muscle to the femoral osteotomy site appears not to halve any advantage over standard hip excision. The original deep gluteal transfer technique was not compared.

A portion of this report was presented at the 1995 Veterinary Orthopedic Society meeting, Whistler, B.C. Canada

Keywords

Gait analysis - ground reaction force - hip arthroplasty - hip excision
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Danielsson LG. Incidence and prognosis of coxarthrosis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1993; 287: 13-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nelson CL. Femoral head and neck excision arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1971; 2: 127-37.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Spreull JSA. Excision arthroplasty as a method of treatment of hip joint disease in the dog. Vet Rec 1961; 73: 573-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berzon JL, Howard PE, Covell SJ. et al. A retrospective study of the efficacy of femoral head and neck excisions in 94 dogs and cats. J Vet Surg 1980; 9: 88-92.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bjorling DE, Chambers JN. The biceps femoris flap and femoral head and neck excision in dogs. Comp Cont Educ 1986; 8: 359-63.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dueland RT. Deep gluteal muscle transfer in excision arthroplasty in dogs. Mod Vet Pract 1984; 65: 860-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lewis DD, Bellah JR, Meharin MD, Aaskin JM. Postoperative examination of the biceps femoris muscle sling used in excision of the femoral head and neck in dogs. J Vet Surg 1988; 17: 269-77.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lippincott CL. Improvement of excision arthroplasty of the canine femoral head and neck utilizing a biceps femoris muscle sling. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1981; 17: 668-72.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lippincott CL. Excision arthroplasty of the femoral head and neck utilizing a biceps femoris muscle sling. Part two: The caudal pass. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1984; 20: 377-84.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mann FA, Aaugner CH, Wagner-Mann C. et al. A comparison of standard femoral head and neck excision and femoral head and neck excision using a biceps femoris muscle flap in the dog. J Vet Surg 1987; 16: 223-30.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Prostredny JM, Toombs JP, VanSickle DC. Effect of two muscle sling techniques on early morbidity after femoral head and neck excision in dogs. J Vet Surg 1991; 20: 298-305.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Remedios AM. Femoral head excision arthroplasty using the vascularized rectus femoris muscle sling. VCOT 1994; 7: 82-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, Hauptman J. et al. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 627-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Allan C, Jasty TP, Harrigan C. et al. A comparison of the joint reaction forces measured with an instrumented prosthesis and calculated from gait analysis. Trans Orth Res Soc 1989; 14: 226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Anderson MA, Mann FA. Force plate analysis: A noninvasive tool for gait evaluation. Comp Cont Educ 1994; 16: 857-67.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW. Force plate analysis of the walking gait in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 1987; 48: 915-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Brown J, Reece L. Vertical loading rates in clinically normal dogs at a trot. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 1275-80.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Budsberg SC, Jevens DJ. Brown J, Evaluation of limb symmetry indices, using ground reaction forces in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 1569-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McLaughlin RM, Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 1666-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McLaughlin RM, Roush JK. Effects of increasing velocity on braking and propulsion times during force plate gait analysis in Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 159-61.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Roush JK, McLaughlin RM. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the walk. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 1672-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Anderson GI, Hearn T, Taves C. Force plate gait analysis in normal and dysplastic dogs before and after total hip replacement surgery: an experimental study. J Vet Surg 1988; 17: 27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW, Probst CW. Force plate analyses before and after stabilization of canine stifles for cruciate injury. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 1522-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dogan S. Canine intersegmental hip joint forces and moments before and after unilateral total hip replacement. PhD thesis 1989. University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Dogan S, Manley PA, Vanderby R. et al. Canine intersegmental hip joint forces and moments before and after cemented total hip replacement. J Biomech 1991; 24: 397-407.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dueland RT, Bartel DL, Antonson E. Force plate technique for canine gait analysis of total hip and excision arthroplasty. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1977; 13: 547-52.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Manley PA, Vanderby R, Dogan S. et al. Ground reaction force comparison of canine cemented and cementless total hip replacement. Clin Biomech 1990; 5: 199-204.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McLaughlin RM, Miller CW, Taves CL. et al. Force plate analysis of triple pelvic osteotomy for the treatment of canine hip dysplasia. J Vet Surg 1991; 20: 291-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vanderby Jr R, Dogan S, Manley PA. et al. Postoperative ground reaction forces in dogs after total hip replacement: a cemented vs porous ingrowth comparison. Proc Am Soc Biomech 1988: 165-166. Urbana-Champaign, IL.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Vasseur PB, Johnson AL, Budsberg SC. et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of carprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995; 206: 807-11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Piermattei DL, Greeley RG. An Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones of the Dog and Cat. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1979: 132-3.
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Winter DA. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press; 1987: 9
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Jevins DJ, Hauptman JG, DeCamp CE. et al. Contributions to variance in force-plate analysis of gait in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 612-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar