Evaluation of the dorsal acetabular coverage obtained by a modified triple pelvic osteotomy (2.5 pelvic osteotomy)

M. Petazzoni; R. Tamburro; T. Nicetto; M. P. Kowaleski

doi:10.3415/VCOT-11-08-0109

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(05): 385-389
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-08-0109

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of the dorsal acetabular coverage obtained by a modified triple pelvic osteotomy (2.5 pelvic osteotomy)

An ex vivo study on a cadaveric canine model

M. Petazzoni

¹Clinica Veterinaria Milano Sud, Peschiera Borromeo, Milano, Italy

,

R. Tamburro

²Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Dell'Emilia (Bo), Italy

,

T. Nicetto

¹Clinica Veterinaria Milano Sud, Peschiera Borromeo, Milano, Italy

,

M. P. Kowaleski

³Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, Boston MA, USA

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: To evaluate the acetabular ventroversion obtained with a modified triple pelvic osteotomy (2.5 PO) compared with that resulting from standard double pelvic osteotomy (DPO).

Study design: Ex vivo study.

Animals: Seven pelves obtained from skeletally mature dogs with a total body weight ranging from 26–41 kg were used.

Methods: Unilateral DPO technique and dorsal ischial mono-cortical osteotomy were performed on every right hemipelvis. Angular ventral rotation was measured by determining the relative orientation of two Kirschner wires placed in the ilial wing and in the dorsal acetabular rim.

Results: The mean angle of ventroversion was 9.5 ± 5.2 degrees for the DPO group (range 2.1–18.1) and 10.9 ± 4.8 degrees for the 2.5 PO group (range 4.1–19.5). The mean difference between the 2.5 PO and DPO was 1.5 ± 0.6 degrees (range 0.5–2.1).

Conclusions: The 2.5 PO technique increased acetabular ventroversion versus DPO.

Keywords

TPO - triple pelvic osteotomy - DPO - double pelvic osteotomy - osteotomy - hip dysplasia - dog

Full Text

References

References
1 Vezzoni A, Boiocchi S, Vezzoni L. et al. Double pelvic osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasia in young dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 444-452.
2 Vezzoni A, Dravelli G, Vezzoni L. et al. Comparison of conservative management and juvenile pubic symphysiodesis in the early treatment of canine hip dysplasia. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 267-279.
3 Priester WA, Mulvihill JJ. Canine hip dysplasia: relative risk by sex, size, and breed, and comparative aspects. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1972; 160: 735-739.
4 Leighton EA. Genetics of canine hip dysplasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210: 1474-1479.
5 Lust G. An overview of the pathogenesis of canine hip dysplasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210: 1443-1445.
6 Olsewski JM, Lust G, Rendano VT. et al. Degenerative joint disease: Multiple joint involvement in young and mature dogs. Am J Vet Res 1983; 44: 1300-1308.
7 Johnston SA. Conservative and medical management of hip dysplasia. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 595-606.
8 Farrell M, Clements DN, Mellor D. et al. Retrospective evaluation of the long-term outcome of non-surgical management of 74 dogs with clinical hip dysplasia. Vet Rec 2007; 160: 506-511.
9 Slocum B, Devine Slocum T. Pelvic Osteotomy. In: Bojrab MJ, Ellison GW, Slocum B. editors. Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. Baltimore (Maryland, USA): Williams and Wilkins; 2000. pg. 1159-1165
10 Swainson SW, Conzemius MG, Riedesel EA. et al. Effect of pubic symphysiodesis on pelvic development in the skeletally immature greyhound. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 178-190.
11 Bernardé A. Juvenile pubic symphysiodesis and juvenile pubic symphysiodesis associated with pectineus myotomy: short-term outcome in 56 dysplasic puppies. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 158-164.
12 Hohn RB, James JM. Pelvic osteotomy in the treatment of canine hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop 1969; 62: 70-78.
13 Hosgood G, Lewis DD. Retrospective evaluation of fixation complications of 49 pelvic osteotomies in 36 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1993; 34: 123-130.
14 Remedios AM, Fries CL. Implant complications in 20 triple pelvic osteotomies. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 202-207.
15 Simmons S, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Risk factors for screw migration after triple pelvic osteotomy. J Am Hosp Anim Assoc 2001; 37: 269-273.
16 Dudley RM, Wilkens BE. Urethral obstruction as a complication of staged bilateral triple pelvic osteotomy. J Am Hosp Anim Assoc 2004; 40: 162-164.
17 Bogoni P, Rovesti GL. Early detection and treatment of screw loosening in triple pelvic osteotomy. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 190-195.
18 Rose BW, Novo RE, Olson EJ. Osteosarcoma at the site of a triple pelvic osteotomy in a dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2005; 41: 327-331.
19 Doornink MT, Nieves MA, Evans R. Evaluation of ilial screw loosening after triple pelvic osteotomy in dogs: 227 cases (1991-1999). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229: 535-541.
20 Papadopoulos G, Tommasini Degna M. Two cases of dysuria as a complication of single-session bilateral triple pelvic osteotomy. J Small Anim Pract 2006; 47: 741-743.
21 Beosier YM, Daems R, Janssens LAA. Screw loosening six weeks after triple pelvic osteotomy Comparison of pre-tapped with self-tapping 3.5 mm cortical screws. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 14-18.
22 Haudiquet PH, Guillon JF. Radiographic evaluation of double pelvic osteotomy versus triple pelvic osteotomy in the dog: an in vitro experimental study. Proceedings of 13th ESVOT Congress. 2006. September 7-10 Munich, Germany: pg. 239-240.
23 Hulse D, Hyman B. Fracture biology and biomechanics. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003. pg. 1785-1792
24 Schwarz PD. Fracture biomechanics of the appendicular skeleton: causes and assessment. In: Bojrab MJ, Smeak D, Bloomberg M. editors. Disease Mechanism in Small Animal Surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1993. pg. 1009-1026
25 Beer FP, Johnston Jr. ER, DeWolf JT. et al. Pure Bending. In: Mechanics of Materials (In SI Units). New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004. pg. 208-306
26 Punke JP, Fox DB, Tomlinson JL. et al. Acetabular ventroversion with double pelvic osteotomy versus triple pelvic osteotomy: a cadaveric study in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 555-562.