Guidelines for surgical approaches for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in cats

Summary

Objectives: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) is one of the most recent fixation techniques that embody the concept of biological osteosynthesis. Several studies evaluating MIPO in dogs have been published in the recent years. However, there are few clinical reports of MIPO in cats and no description of the surgical approaches. The purpose of our study was to describe the safe corridors for plate insertion in cats using the MIPO technique.

Methods: The surgical approaches for the humerus, radius-ulna, femur and tibia were developed after reviewing the described techniques and surgical approaches for MIPO in dogs, while considering any relevant anatomical difference between dogs and cats. Following the MIPO approaches, the limbs were anatomically dissected and the relationship between proximal and distal positions of the implants and neurovascular structures was noted.

Results: The surgical approaches developed for the humerus and radius-ulna differed from what had been reported previously, because relevant anatomical differences were found between dogs and cats. Anatomical landmarks for safe plate application were described for all the major long bones in cats. No damage to vital structures following plate insertion was detected in the dissection.

Clinical significance: In this cadaveric study, we evaluated the safety of the surgical approaches for MIPO in cats. By respecting the anatomical landmarks described in this report, damage to the neurovascular structures can be avoided performing the MIPO technique in cats.

Keywords

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis - cat - approaches - MIPO surgery

• References

• 1 Hudson CC, Lewis DD, Pozzi A. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in small animals: radius and ulna fractures. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2012; 42: 983-996.
• 2 Pozzi A, Risselada M, Winter MD. Assessment of fracture healing after minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis or open reduction and internal fixation of coexisting radius and ulna fractures in dogs via ultrasonography and radiography. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 241: 744-753.
• 3 Williams THD, Schenk W. Bridging-minimally invasive locking plate osteosynthesis (Bridging-MILPO): technique description with prospective series of 20 tibial fractures. Injury 2008; 39: 1198-1203.
• 4 Schmökel HG, Stein S, Radke 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.
• 5 Pozzi A, Lewis D. Surgical approaches for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 316-320.
• 6 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.
• 7 Boero Baroncelli A, Peirone B, Winter MD. et al. Retrospective comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open plating for tibial fractures in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 410-417.
• 8 Guiot LP, Déjardin LM. Prospective evaluation of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in 36 nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 171-182.
• 9 Johnson KA. Piermattei’s Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th Edition. Philadelphia: W.B.: Saunders; 2014
• 10 Scott HW, McLaughlin R. Introduction to Feline Orthopedic Surgery. In Scott HW, McLaughlin R. Editors Feline Orthopedics. Iowa: Manson Publishing; 2006: 9-16.
• 11 Wallace A, De La Puerta B, Trayhorn D. et al. Feline combined diaphyseal radial and ulnar fractures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 38-46.
• 12 Preston TJ, Glyde M, Hosgood G. et al. Dual bone fixation: A biomechanical comparison of 3 implant constructs in a mid-diaphyseal fracture model of the feline radius and ulna. Vet Surg 2016; 45: 289-294.