Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(01): 42-46
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-10-0153
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Detection of meniscal tears by arthroscopy and arthrotomy in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture

A retrospective, cohort study

Authors

  • R. Plesman

    1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
  • P. Gilbert

    1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
  • J. Campbell

    2   Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Further Information

Publication History

Received 31 October 2011

Accepted 23 July 2012

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Preview

Summary

Objectives: To evaluate and compare detection of meniscal tears associated with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency by either arthroscopy or arthrotomy.

Methods: A retrospective, cohort study was completed with stifles (n = 531) of dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Either a medial parapatellar arthrotomy or an arthroscopy procedure was performed and groups were compared for significant differences in meniscal tears detected using logistic regression analysis.

Results: Arthroscopy was performed on 58.8% and arthrotomy on 41.2% of the stifles. In total, 44.4% of the examined stifles had meniscal tears. Meniscal tears were found in 38.8% of the stifles examined by arthrotomy, and 48.4% of those examined by arthroscopy. Overall, the rate of detection of a meniscal tear was significantly different (p = 0.019) between the groups, and meniscal tears were observed more frequently by arthroscopy than by arthrotomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% confidence interval 1.07 – 2.22).

Clinical significance: These results suggest that arthroscopy may be more sensitive than arthrotomy for detection of meniscal pathology in clinical patients. However, these results must be interpreted with caution since this was a retrospective study. Randomized prospective clinical studies are required to further test this hypothesis.