Comparison of Two Bandage Splint Constructs in an Ex Vivo Equine Metacarpal Fracture Model

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the deflection distance, deflection angle and pre-loading sub-bandage pressure of a transverse, mid-metacarpal fracture in an equine cadaver limb when loaded in bending while stabilized with either a Robert Jones Bandage (RJB) or a single-stack bandage (SS), each containing two orthogonal splints.

Study Design In an ex vivo experimental study, forelimb pairs from eight horses were collected, and one forelimb from each pair was assigned to either the SS or RJB groups. A transverse osteotomy was performed at the midpoint of the metacarpus. After bandaging, the limbs were loaded in bending. Pre-loading sub-bandage pressure, pre- and post-loading radiographs and post-loading deflection distance measurements were taken. Dorsopalmar radiographs were used to measure the loaded deflection angle.

Results There was no significant difference between RJB and SS constructs in change in deflection angle (10.7 ± 3.0 degrees vs. 9.8 ± 2.6 degrees; p = 0.5) or deflection distance (13.1 ± 2.6 cm vs. 11.4 ± 3.1 cm; p = 0.2). Sub-bandage pressures were significantly greater for the SS than the RJB both dorsally and laterally.

Conclusion The SS splint construct resists bending forces similarly to the RJB splint construct in an ex vivo transverse, metacarpal fracture model. The SS splint construct may be a useful alternative to the RJB splint construct in field situations for metacarpal fracture stabilization.

Keywords

horse - bandage - splint - fracture - Robert Jones

Note

An abstract of this manuscript was presented at the 2018 ACVS Surgical Summit.

Authors' Contributions

K.M.W. & J.D.L. participated in all aspects of this study. W.L.B. participated in study design, data analysis and manuscript preparation. M.E.G. participated in study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Ethical Animal Research

Reviewed and approved for cadaver use by the Kansas State University IACUC; # 3902.

Publication History

Received: 31 January 2022

Accepted: 30 September 2022

Article published online:
28 December 2022

• References

• 1 Fürst AE. Emergency treatment and transportation of equine fracture patients. In: Auer JA, Stick JA. eds. Equine Surgery . 4th ed.. St. Louis: W.B. Saunders; 2012: 1015-1025
• 2 Bramlage LR. Current concepts of emergency first aid treatment and transportation of equine fracture patients. Compend Contin Educ 1983; 5: S564-S573
• 3 Wright IM. Racecourse fracture management. Part 2: techniques for temporary immobilisation and transport. Equine Vet Educ 2017; 29: 440-451
• 4 Schramme M. The Robert Jones bandage. Equine Vet Educ 1989; 1: 50-51
• 5 Brodell JD, Axon DL, Evarts CM. The Robert Jones bandage. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986; 68 (05) 776-779
• 6 Denny HR. The principles of equine fracture fixation. Equine Vet Educ 1990; 2: 191-196
• 7 Mudge MC, Bramlage LR. Field fracture management. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2007; 23 (01) 117-133
• 8 Smith JJ. Emergency fracture stabilization. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2006; 5: 154-160
• 9 Canada NC, Beard WL, Guyan ME, White BJ. Measurement of distal limb sub-bandage pressure over 96 hours in horses. Equine Vet J 2017; 49 (03) 329-333
• 10 Lindsay WA. Equine bandaging techniques. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1989; 5 (03) 513-538
• 11 Lutter JD, Cary JA, Stephens RR, Potts LB. Relative stiffness of 3 bandage/splint constructs for stabilization of equine midmetacarpal fractures. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2015; 25 (03) 379-387
• 12 Partsch H, Mosti G. Comparison of three portable instruments to measure compression pressure. Int Angiol 2010; 29 (05) 426-430
• 13 Canada NC, Beard WL, Guyan ME, White BJ. Effect of bandaging techniques on sub-bandage pressures in the equine distal limb, carpus, and tarsus. Vet Surg 2018; 47 (05) 640-647