PDF herunterladen
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
1   Clinica Veterinaria Milano Sud, Peschiera Borromeo, Milano, Italy
,
R. Tamburro
2   Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Dell'Emilia (Bo), Italy
,
T. Nicetto
1   Clinica Veterinaria Milano Sud, Peschiera Borromeo, Milano, Italy
,
M. P. Kowaleski
3   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, Boston MA, USA
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Received 03. August 2011

Accepted 16. Mai 2012

Publikationsdatum:
18. Dezember 2017 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

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
 

  • 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.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Leighton EA. Genetics of canine hip dysplasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210: 1474-1479.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lust G. An overview of the pathogenesis of canine hip dysplasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997; 210: 1443-1445.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Johnston SA. Conservative and medical management of hip dysplasia. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 595-606.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hohn RB, James JM. Pelvic osteotomy in the treatment of canine hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop 1969; 62: 70-78.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Remedios AM, Fries CL. Implant complications in 20 triple pelvic osteotomies. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 202-207.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bogoni P, Rovesti GL. Early detection and treatment of screw loosening in triple pelvic osteotomy. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 190-195.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Hulse D, Hyman B. Fracture biology and biomechanics. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003. pg. 1785-1792
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar