Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23(06): 459-467
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-10-01-0001
Clinical Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Minimally invasive application of a radial plate following placement of an ulnar rod in treating antebrachial fractures

Technique and case series
T. H. Witsberger
1   Department of Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
,
D. A. Hulse
1   Department of Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
2   Veterinary Orthopedic Center, Round Rock, Texas, USA
,
S. C. Kerwin
1   Department of Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
,
W. B. Saunders
1   Department of Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 11 January 2010

Accepted: 23 June 2010

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To describe a surgical technique for placement of a minimally invasive radial plate following application of an ulnar rod (MIPR) for treatment of antebrachial fractures.

Methods: Medical records (November 2005-June 2009) were searched to identify dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures stabilised by MIPR. Data retrieved included signalment, weight, limb affected, cause of injury, open versus closed fracture, number of fragments, implant size, number of screws used and cortices engaged, number of open screw holes, operative time, rod removal, complications and time to radio-graphic healing. To be included, dogs had to have evidence of radiographic healing during follow-up.

Results: Eight dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures treated with MIPR were included in the case series. All fractures were due to trauma and two fractures were open (grade 1). Rod loosening and osteomyelitis of the ulna occurred in one case which subsequently resolved with rod removal. Healing occurred in all cases with no implant failures. Median time to radiographic union was 10.5 weeks (mean ± SD = 17 ± 15 weeks range 4–52 weeks).

Clinical relevance: Use of MIPR constructs on diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna is an effective technique for managing these fractures using principles of biological osteo-synthesis. An intramedullary rod in the ulna assists with fracture reduction and stabilisation and rod removal is recommended once fracture healing has occurred.

Keywords

Minimally invasive - plate - rod - fracture
 

  • References

  • 1 Harasen G. Common long bone fractures in small animal practice – part 1. Can Vet J 2003; 44: 333-334.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harasen G. Common long bone fractures in small animal practice – part 2. Can Vet J 2003; 44: 503-504.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661-674.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anderson GM, Lewis DD, Radasch RM. et al. Circular External Skeletal Fixatation Stabilization of Antebrachial and Crural Fractures in 25 Dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2002; 39: 479-498.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rovesti GL, Bosio A, Marcellin-Little DJ. Management of 49 antebrachial and crural fractures in dogs using circular external fixators. J Small Anim Pract 2007; 48: 194-200.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sardinas JC, Montavon PM. Use of a medial bone plate for repair of radius and ulna fractures in dogs and cats: a report of 22 cases. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 108-113.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Johnson AL, Houlton JEF, Vannini R. AO Principles of Fracture Management in the Dog and Cat. Davos Platz, Switzerland: AO Publishing 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Reems MR, Beale BS, Hulse DA. Use of a plate-rod construct and principles of biological osteosynthesis for repair of diaphyseal fractures in dogs and cats: 47 cases (1994–2001). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 223: 330-335.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Palmer RH. Biological osteosynthesis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 1171-1185. vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hudson C, Pozzi A, Lewis D. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: Applications and techniques in dogs and cats. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 175-182.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pozzi A, Lewis D. Surgical approaches for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 316-320.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baumgaertel F, Buhl M, Rahn BA. Fracture healing in biological plate osteosynthesis. Injury 1998; 29 (Suppl. 03) Suppl C3-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Horstman CL, Beale BS, Conzemius MG. et al. Biological osteosynthesis versus traditional anatomic reconstruction of 20 long-bone fractures using an interlocking nail: 1994-2001. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 232-237.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Johnson AL. Current concepts in fracture reduction. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 59-66.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Johnson AL, Smith CW, Schaeffer DJ. Fragment reconstruction and bone plate fixation versus bridging plate fixation for treating highly comminuted femoral fractures in dogs: 35 cases (1987–1997). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998; 213: 1157-1161.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T. et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: does percutaneous plating disrupt femoral blood supply less than the traditional technique?. J Orthop Trauma 1999; 13: 401-406.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T. et al. Effects of percutaneous and conventional plating techniques on the blood supply to the femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1998; 117: 438-441.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B31-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wagner M, Frigg R. AO Manual of Fracture Management: Internal Fixators. Davos Platz, Switzerland: AO Publishing 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schmokel HG, Hurter SPK. Percutaneous plating of tibial fractures in two dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 191-195.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lau TW, Leung F, Chan CF. et al. Wound complication of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in distal tibia fractures. Int Orthop 2008; 32: 697-703.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Oh CW, Park BC, Kyung HS. et al. Percutaneous plating for unstable tibial fractures. J Orthop Sci 2003; 08: 166-169.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ziran BH, Belangero W, Livani B. et al. Percutaneous plating of the humerus with locked plating: technique and case report. J Trauma 2007; 63: 205-210.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hulse D, Hyman W, Nori M. et al. Reduction in plate strain by addition of an intramedullary pin. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 451-459.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hulse D, Ferry K, Fawcett A. et al. Effect of intramedullary pin size on reducing bone plate strain. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2000; 13: 185-190.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Guiot LP, Dejardin LM. Minimally invasive percutaneous plate-rod osteosynthesis for treatment of extra-articular humeral fractures in dogs. In: Abstracts from the American College of Veterinary Surgeons Symposium; 2009 October 8-10. Washington, D.C., USA: Printed in: Vet Surg; 2009. 38 E32-33.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fox DB, Tomlinson JL, Cook JL. et al. Principles of uniapical and biapical radial deformity correction using dome osteotomies and the center of rotation of angulation methodology in dogs. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 67-77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Meola SD, Wheeler JL, Rist CL. Validation of a technique to assess radial torsion in the presence of procurvatum and valgus deformity using computed tomography: a cadaveric study. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 525-529.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Halling KB, Lewis DD, Cross AR. et al. Complication rate and factors affecting outcome of olecranon osteotomies repaired with pin and tension-band fixation in dogs. Can Vet J 2002; 43: 528-534.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 1093-1110.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schmökel HG, Stein H. et al. Treatment of tibial fractures with plates using minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 2007; 48: 157-160.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Haaland P, Sjöström L, Devor M. et al. Appendicular fracture repair in dogs using the locking compression plate system: 47 cases. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 309-315.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schwandt CS, Montavon PM. Locking compression plate fixation of radial and tibial fractures in a young dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 194-198.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pozzi A, Hudson C. Minimally invasive plate osteo-synthesis for radial fractures. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual American College of Veterinary Medicine Symposium San Diego, CA, USA: 2008. October 23-25 g. 300.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Pozzi A, Hudson C, Lewis D. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: initial clinical experience in 10 cases. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference Big Sky, MT, USA: 2008. March 8-15 g. 85.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Imatani J, Noda T, Morito Y. et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for comminuted fractures of the metaphysis of the radius. J Hand Surg Br 2005; 30: 220-225.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B63-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sanders R, Haidukewych GJ, Milne T. et al. Minimal versus maximal plate fixation techniques of the ulna: the biomechanical effect of number of screws and plate length. J Orthop Trauma 2002; 16: 166-171.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Goh CS, Santoni BG, Puttlitz CM. et al. Comparison of the mechanical behaviors of semicontoured, locking plate-rod fixation and anatomically contoured, conventional plate-rod fixation applied to experimentally induced gap fractures in canine femora. Am J Vet Res 2009; 70: 23-29.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Krettek C, Muller M, Miclau T. Evolution of minim-ally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in the femur. Injury 2001; 32 (Suppl. 03) Suppl SC14-23.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pantos I, Patatoukas G, Katritsis DG. et al. Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology procedures. Curr Cardiol Rev 2009; 5: 1-11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jones DG, Stoddart J. Radiation use in the orthopaedic theatre: a prospective audit. Aust N Z J Surg 1998; 68: 782-784.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Tasbas BA, Yagmurlu MF, Bayrakci K. et al. Which one is at risk in intraoperative fluoroscopy? Assistant surgeon or orthopaedic surgeon?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123: 242-244.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Theocharopoulos N, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J. et al. Occupational exposure from common fluoroscopic projections used in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85A: 1698-1703.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar