Femoral Fractures

Question 1

Konning, JSAP, 2013:
ESF vs bone plate vs plate-rod

1. Which construct had the most complications overall?
2. Which construct had the fewest complications overall but most of the complications were major complications?
3. Which construct had the most catastrophic complications?

Answer 1

Konning, JSAP, 2013:

1. ESF constructs had the most complications overall, but most were minor
2. Plate-rod constructs had the fewest complications overall, but most were major
3. Bone plate constructs had the most catastrophic complications

Question 2

Delisser, VCOT, 2013:
Plate-rod fixation with 1 bicortical screw in the most proximal and distal plate holes, and 1 to 4 monocortical screws in each proximal and distal fragment

1. What was the trend in construct stiffness?
2. Load to failure between constructs?

Answer 2

Delisser, VCOT, 2013:

1. Construct stiffness showed a linear increase with an increasing number of monocortical screws
2. Load to failure was not different between groups

Question 3

Frydman, VCOT, 2014:
Bicondylar femoral fractures complicated by concurrent ligament or tendon injuries

Anatomical reduction and internal fixation of bicondylar femoral fractures may offer a good to excellent return to function with or without repair of concurrent caudal cruciate ligament injuries - true or false?

Answer 3

Frydman, VCOT, 2014:

True

Question 4

Bonin, Vet Surg, 2014:
3.5mm LC-DCP + IM pin vs 5mm clamp-rod internal fixator (CRIF) + IM pin

1. Differences in bending stiffness or strength?
2. Differences in torsional stiffness?

Answer 4

Bonin, Vet Surg, 2014:

1. No differences in bending stiffness or strength
2. No differences in torsional stiffness below 10 degrees of twist but above 10 degrees of twist, the LC-DCP + IM pin constructs had higher torsional stiffness than the CRIF + IM pin constructs

Question 5

Matres-Lorenzo, Vet Surg, 2016:
LCP vs LC-DCP + IM pin

Which construct showed higher stiffness and resistance to failure, lower interfragmentary motion (axial and shear), and lower plate strain and stress?

Answer 5

Matres-Lorenzo, Vet Surg, 2016:

LC-DCP + IM pin showed higher stiffness and resistance to failure, lower interfragmentary motion (axial and shear), and lower plate strain and stress

Question 6

Macedo, VCOT, 2017:

Torsional strength and stiffness of the Targon Vet Nail System vs the 2.4mm LC-DCP?

Answer 6

Macedo, VCOT, 2017:

The Targon Vet Nail System had half the torsional strength and a third of the stiffness of the 2.4mm LC-DCP

Question 7

Vedrine and Gerard, VCOT, 2018:
Veterinary cuttable plate + IM pin in cats

1. Range of IM pin sizes used?
2. Median number of cortices engaged per fragment?
3. What % of screws were bicortical?
4. Functional outcome?

Answer 7

Vedrine and Gerard, VCOT, 2018:

1. 55% of the cats had an IM pin that occupied 40% of the medullary canal, and 45% of the cats had an IM pin that occupied 53% of the medullary canal
2. Median number of cortices engaged per fragment: 6 - the high amount of screw holes per unit length of a veterinary cuttable plate allowed bicortical screw placement without interfering with the IM rod
3. 99% of the screws were bicortical
4. 85% full functional outcome, 10% acceptable functional outcome, 5% unacceptable functional outcome