Tibial Fractures

Question 1

Beierer, Vet Surg, 2014:
LCP + IM pin vs LCP + PEEK rod

Biomechanical differences?

Answer 1

Beierer, Vet Surg, 2014:

The PEEK rod constructs were stiffer in axial compression, lateral-medial 4-point bending and torsional loading, but there was no difference in stiffness in caudal-cranial 4-point bending; PEEK rod constructs failed at a higher load than Steinmann pin constructs

Question 2

van der Zee, VCOT, 2014:
Cerclage wires + IM pin

IM pin vs cerclage wires for long oblique fractures?

Answer 2

van der Zee, VCOT, 2014:

Cerclage wire repair of a long oblique fracture resulted in higher stiffness than repair with an IM pin alone, and when cerclage wires were combined with an IM pin, the IM pin did not provide protection to the cerclage wire repair; the wires or the bone under the wires has to fail before the IM pin resists significant loads

Question 3

Dejardin, Vet Surg, 2014:
Angle-stable interlocking nail (AS-ILN) vs standard interlocking nail (ILN6b)

1. Degree of lameness at 4-8 weeks post-op with the AS-ILN vs ILN6b?
2. Callus volume in the AS-ILN constructs vs ILN6b constructs?
3. Clinical union rates for AS-ILN vs ILN6b?

Answer 3

Dejardin, Vet Surg, 2014:

1. Lameness was less pronounced at 4-8 weeks post-op in the AS-ILN group compared to the ILN6b group
2. Callus volume was 111% greater in the AS-ILN constructs than the ILN6b constructs
3. Clinical union was achieved in all AS-ILN constructs by 10 weeks post-op, whereas only 60% of the ILN6b constructs achieved clinical union at 18 weeks post-op

Question 4

Perry and Bruce, VCOT, 2015:

1. Overall complication rate?
2. Which group sustained all the major complications?
3. Were complications more common in the ESF group or the ORIF group?

Answer 4

Perry and Bruce, VCOT, 2015:

1. 40% complication rate
2. All the complications occurred in the ESF group
3. Complications were more common in the ESF group (50%) than the ORIF group (8%)

Question 5

Gutbrod, Vet Surg, 2017:
Plate-rod fixation - LCP + IM pin (30%, 40% , 45% and 50% diameter)

1. Bicortical screws could be inserted in which plate holes?
2. Which pin size allowed placement of a greater number of bicortical screws?

Answer 5

Gutbrod, Vet Surg, 2017:

1. Bicortical screws could be inserted in all specimens in the 3 most proximal plate holes and in at least 1 of the 3 distal plate holes
2. The smallest IM pin size (30%) allowed placement of a greater number of bicortical screws

Question 6

Deahl, VCOT, 2017:

Characteristics of proximal tibial metaphyseal fractures?

Answer 6

Deahl, VCOT, 2017:

Proximal tibial metaphyseal fractures have a characteristic curvilinear fracture configuration that affects mainly immature (<6 months) small breed dogs <5kg, with a predominance for terrier breeds

Question 7

Wagoner, VCOT, 2018:
Fiberglass vs thermoplastic splint materials

1. Effect of splint location (cranial vs lateral) on construct stiffness?
2. Differences in interfragmentary motion in the sagittal and frontal planes for cranially applied fiberglass vs thermoplastic splints?
3. Differences in interfragmentary motion in the frontal plane for laterally applied fiberglass vs thermoplastic splints?

Answer 7

Wagoner, VCOT, 2018:

1. Splint location had no effect on construct stiffness
2. No difference in interfragmentary motion in the sagittal and frontal planes between fiberglass and thermoplastic splints applied cranially
3. Interfragmentary motion in the frontal plane was 64% less with fiberglass splints compared to thermoplastic splints when applied laterally