Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(02): 83-88
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-05-0077
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vitro mechanical evaluation of a limited contact dynamic compression plate and hybrid carpal arthrodesis plate for canine pancarpal arthrodesis

R. P. Guillou
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
R. M. Demianiuk
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
M. T. Sinnott
2   The Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratories, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
K. Curcio
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
C. E. DeCamp
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
R. C. Haut
2   The Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratories, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
,
L. M. Déjardin
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 24 May 2011

Accepted 27 September 2011

Publication Date:
23 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To compare the mechanical properties of pancarpal arthrodesis (PCA) constructs stabilized at 20° of extension using either a 3.5 mm limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) or a 3.5/2.7 mm hybrid plate (HP).

Methods: Seven forelimb pairs were used from dogs of similar size. All soft tissues were removed except for supporting structures of the carpus and proximal metacarpal region. All plates were accurately bent to 20°, and then instrumented with two, 350Ω strain gauges applied at the level of the bend. Constructs were embedded in epoxy moulds then mounted onto a servo-hydraulic testing machine. Specimens were loaded for 10 cycles at 100N, 200N and 300N. Tenth cycle construct compliance (CC), maximum angular deformation (MAD), and peak plate strain (PPS) were compared using two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student-Newman- Keuls post-hoc tests (p <0.05).

Results: Regardless of load, CC was 29% to 33% smaller in the HP than the LC-DCP group (p <0.03). In each group, the CC significantly increased with increasing loads (p <0.02). Mean MAD was 19% to 22% less in HP than LC-DCP constructs, with significant differences seen at 200N and 300N loads. In both groups, MAD was significantly greater with increasing loads (p <0.02). In addition, PPS was 37% to 43% smaller for HP than LC-DCP.

Clinical significance: The mechanical advantages of the HP over the LC-DCP make it a viable alternative for PCA. Smaller CC, MAD and PSS of the HP may reduce the risk of implant failure and postoperative morbidity following PCA.

Keywords

Pancarpal arthrodesis - carpal arthrodesis - hybrid plate - limited contact dynamic compression plate - fusion angle - dog
 

  • References

  • 1 Parker RB, Brown SG, Wind AP. Pancarpal arthrodesis in the dog: a review of forty-five cases. Vet Surg 1981; 10: 35-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lesser AS. Arthrodesis. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003. pg. 2174-2176.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Gambarella PC, Griffiths RC. Treatment of hyperextension injuries of the canine carpus. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1982; 5: 127-131.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Early T. Canine carpal ligament injuries. Vet Clin North Am 1978; 8: 183-199.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Diaz-Bertrana C, Darnaculleta F, Durall I. et al. The stepped hybrid plate for carpal panarthrodesis - Part I: relationship between plate and bone surfaces. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 380-388.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Buote NJ, McDonald D, Radasch RM. Pancarpal and partial carpal arthrodesis. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2009; 31: 180-192.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Clarke SP, Ferguson JF, Miller A. Clinical evaluation of pancarpal arthrodesis using a CastLess plate in 11 dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 852-860.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Diaz-Bertrana C, Darnaculleta F, Durall I. et al. The stepped hybrid plate for carpal panarthrodesis - Part II: a multicentre study of 52 arthrodeses. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 389-397.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li A, Gibson N, Carmichael S. et al. Thirteen pancarpal arthrodesis using 2.7/3.5 mm hybrid dynamic compression plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 102-107.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Whitelock RG, Dyce J, Houlton JE. Metacarpal fractures associated with pancarpal arthrodesis in dogs. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 25-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chambers JN, Bjorling DE. Palmar surface plating for arthrodesis of the canine carpus. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1982; 18: 25-30.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guerrero TG, Montavon PM. Medial plating for carpal panarthrodesis. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 153-158.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Perren SM, Klaue K, Pohler O. et al. The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109: 304-310.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Worth AJ, Bruce WJ. Long-term assessment of pancarpal arthrodesis performed on working dogs in New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2008; 56: 78-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wininger FA, Kapatkin AS, Radin A. et al. Failure mode and bending moment of canine pancarpal arthrodesis constructs stabilized with two different implant systems. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 724-728.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hottinger HA, DeCamp CE, Olivier NB. et al. Noninvasive kinematic analysis of the walk in healthy large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57: 381-388.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 DeCamp CE. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis and the assessment of lameness in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1997; 27: 825-840.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sinnott MT. In vitro biomechanical analysis of several joint and fracture fixation techniques [thesis]. East Lansing: Michigan State University; 2006. .
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Muir P, Johnson KA, Markel MD. Area moment of inertia for comparison of implant cross-sectional geometry and bending stiffness. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 146-152.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Guillou RP, Frank JD, Sinnott MT. et al. In vitro mechanical evaluation of medial plating for pantarsal arthrodesis in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2008; 69: 1406-1412.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar