DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Application of Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis to Tibial Shaft Fractures in Dogs

  • Rahman, Md. Mahbubur (Royal Animal Medical Center) ;
  • Jeong, In-Seong (Royal Animal Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Nam Soo (Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2017.03.03
  • Accepted : 2017.06.11
  • Published : 2017.06.30

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) method for treatment of tibial shaft fractures in dogs by comparing MIPO radiographic and fracture healing time results with those from the popular open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) technique. In this clinical study at the Royal Animal Medical Center, five consecutive dogs with diagnoses of comminuted tibial shaft fractures were treated with the MIPO surgical approach. For comparison, an additional five breed-, age-, and weight-matched dogs with comminuted tibial shaft fractures were treated with the ORIF technique. Mean healing time was $75.6{\pm}12.5$ days in the MIPO group and $131.8{\pm}18.6$ days in the ORIF group (p < 0.01). The mean surgery time in the MIPO group ($36.4{\pm}3.5$ minutes) was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) than that for the ORIF group ($47.0{\pm}2.2$ minutes). Based on the short surgical and healing times, the MIPO approach is clinically superior to the ORIF approach and should be the preferred approach in tibial fracture cases.

References

  1. BoeroBaroncelli A, Peirone B, Winter MD, Reese DJ, PozziA. Retrospective comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open plating for tibial fractures in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 410-417. https://doi.org/10.3415/VCOT-11-07-0097
  2. Chen CY, Lin KC, Yang SW, Renn JH, Tarng YW. Clinical results of using minimally invasive long plate osteosynthesis versus conventional approach for extensive comminuted metadiaphyseal fractures of the radius. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135: 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2162-5
  3. Del Vecchio JJ, Ghioldi M, Raimondi N, De Elias M. Minimally Minvasivelmedial plating of low-energy Lisfranc injuries: preliminary experience with five cases. Adv Orthop 2016; 2016: 4861260.
  4. Dong WW, Shi ZY, Liu ZX, Mao HJ. Indirect reduction technique using distraction support in minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis of tibial shaft fractures. Chin J Traumatol. 2016; 19: 348-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.09.001
  5. Gruber R, Koch H, Doll BA, Tegtmeier F, Einhorn TA, Hollinger JO. Fracture healing in the elderly patient. Exp Gerontol xp G; 41: 1080-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2006.09.008
  6. Guiot Guiot LP, Dejardin LM. Prospective evaluation of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in 36 nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Vet Surg. 2011; 40: 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00783.x
  7. Heitemeyer U, Kemper F, Hierholzer G, Haines J. Severely comminuted femoral shaft fractures: treatment by bridgingplate osteosynthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987; 106: 327-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00454343
  8. Kanczler JM, Oreffo RO. Osteogenesis and angiogenesis: the potential for engineering bone. Eur Cell Mater. 2008; 15: 100-114. https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v015a08
  9. Li A, Wei Z, Ding H, Tang H, Liu Y, Shi J, Zhou H, Feng SQ. Minimally invasive percutaneous plates versus conventional fixation techniques for distal tibial fractures: A meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2016; 38: 52-60.
  10. Mirhadi S, Ashwood N, Karagkevrekis B. Factors influencing fracture healing. Trauma 2013; 15: 140-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460408613486571
  11. Pozzi A, Risselada M, Winter MD. Assessment of fracture healing after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis or open reduction and internal fixation of coexisting radius and ulna fractures in dogs via ultrasonography and radiography. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 24: 744-753.
  12. Rozbruch RS, Muller U, Gautier, E. The evolution of femoral shaft plating technique. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1998; 354: 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199809000-00024
  13. Tomlinson RE, Silva MJ. Skeletal blood flow in bone repair and maintenance. Bone Res 2013; 1: 311-322. https://doi.org/10.4248/BR201304002
  14. Vidovic D, Matejcic A, Ivica M, Jurisic D, Elabjer E, BakotaB. Minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis in distal tibial fractures: Results and complications. Injury 2015; 46: 96-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.067
  15. Xu H, Xue Z, Ding H, Qin H, An Z. Callus formation and mineralization after fracture with different fixation techniques: minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis versus open reduction internal fixation. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0140037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140037
  16. Xue Z, Xu H, Ding H, Qin H, An Z. Comparison of the effect on bone healing process of different implants used in minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: limited contact dynamic compression plate versus locking compression plate. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 37902. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37902
  17. Yamamoto N, Ogawa K, Terada C, Okazaki Y, Munetomo K, Noda T, Ozaki T. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis using posterolateral approach for distal tibial and tibial shaft fractures. Injury 2016; 47: 1862-1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.06.017