Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30(04): 265-271
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-16-09-0127
Clinical Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Clinical outcome and complications of thoracic and pelvic limb stump and socket prostheses

Andrew Phillips
1   Royal Veterinary College, Queen Mother Hospital for Animals, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK
,
Elvin Kulendra
1   Royal Veterinary College, Queen Mother Hospital for Animals, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK
,
Edith Bishop
2   Veterinary Referral Hospital, Hallam, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Michelle Monk
3   Dogs In Motion, Moorabbin, Victoria, Australia
,
Kevin Parsons
4   University of Bristol, Small Animal Hospital, Langford, Bristol, UK
,
Arthur House
2   Veterinary Referral Hospital, Hallam, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 03 September 2016

Accepted: 06 March 2017

Publication Date:
23 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To describe the use, quality of life, compliance, complications, and outcome of animals fitted with stump socket prostheses.

Methods: Medical records of dogs fitted with a stump socket prosthesis were reviewed. Functional outcome, quality of life and complications were retrospectively assessed from an owner questionnaire.

Results: Thirteen stump socket prostheses (12 dogs) were fitted for a variety of reasons including trauma, congenital abnormalities, and neoplasia. Eight dogs had a good outcome overall and four a poor outcome. Quality of life (QOL) remained good or excellent in 10/12 dogs. Nine complications were seen in 7/12 dogs, most were manageable; surgical wound complications (n = 2) and pressures sores (n = 4) were the most frequently encountered. One dog suffered multiple complications. Thoracic and pelvic limb stump socket prostheses had a similar complication rate, however all animals with a poor outcome had a thoracic limb stump socket prosthesis; two were small breed dogs (under 10 kg) and two had bilateral thoracic limb abnormalities.

Clinical significance: Stump socket prostheses are feasible and versatile in animals. In correctly selected cases, good to excellent outcomes are possible. However, complications are frequent but often manageable. Further investigations are required into the risk factors for poor outcomes and prospective studies are required to assess changes in biomechanics, function, and QOL before and after fitting of a stump socket prosthesis. Until further evidence is available, careful consideration should be given before fitting bilateral thoracic limb stump socket prostheses or thoracic limb stump socket prostheses to small breed dogs.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.3415/VCOT-16-09-0127

Keywords

Prostheses - orthotic - partial amputation

 

  • References

  • 1 Seguin B, Weigel J. Amputations. In Tobias KM, Johnson AJ. Editors Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. St.Louis: Elsevier; 2012: 1029-1036.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Kirpensteijn J, van den Bos R, Endenburg N. Adaptation of dogs to the amputation of a limb and their owners’ satisfaction with the procedure. Vet Rec 1999; 144: 115-118.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Raske M, McClaran JK, Mariano A. Short-term wound complications and predictive variables for complication after limb amputation in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 2015; 56: 247-252.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kirpensteijn J, van den Bos R, van den Brom WE. et al. Ground reaction force analysis of large breed dogs when walking after the amputation of a limb. Vet Rec 2000; 146: 155-159.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Liptak JM, Dernell WS, Farese JP. et al. Musculoskeletal System. In Kudnig ST. Séguin B, editors. Veterinary Surgical Oncology. Chichester: Wiley; 2012: 491-567.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Liptak JM, Dernell WS, Ehrhart N. et al. Cortical allograft and endoprosthesis for limb-sparing surgery in dogs with distal radial osteosarcoma: a prospective clinical comparison of two different limb-sparing techniques. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 518-533.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buracco P, Morello E, Martano M. et al. Pasteurized tumoral autograft as a novel procedure for limb sparing in the dog. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 525-532.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Seguin B, Walsh PJ, Mason DR. et al. Use of an ipsilateral vascularized ulnar transposition autograft for limb-sparing surgery of the distal radius in dogs. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 69-79.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Liptak JM, Pluhar GE, Dernell WS. et al. Limb-sparing surgery in a dog with osteosarcoma of the proximal femur. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 71-77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kuntz CA, Asselin TL, Dernell WS. et al. Limb salvage surgery for osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus: outcome in 17 dogs. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 417-422.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Coomer A, Farese J, Milner R. et al. Radiation therapy for canine appendicular osteosarcoma. Vet Comp Oncol 2009; 7: 15-27.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Farese JP, Milner R, Thompson MS. et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of osteosarcomas involving the distal portions of the limbs in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 225: 1567-1572.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brånemark R, Berlin Ö, Hagberg K. et al. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: A prospective study of 51 patients. J Bone Joint 2014; 96: 106-113.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Drygas KA, Taylor R, Sidebotham CG. Transcutaneous tibial implants: a surgical procedure for restoring ambulation after amputation of the distal aspect of the tibia in a dog. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 322-327.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fitzpatrick N, Smith TJ, Pendegrass CJ. et al. Intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prosthesis (ITAP) for limb salvage in 4 dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 909-925.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 DeVasConCellos P, Balla VK, Bose S. et al. Patient specific implants for amputation prostheses: design, manufacture and analysis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 286-296.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ploeg AJ, Lardenoye JW, Vrancken Peeters MPFM. et al. Contemporary series of morbidity and mortality after lower limb amputation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005; 29: 633-637.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Angelini A. et al. Proximal tibial resections and reconstructions: Clinical outcome of 225 patients. J Surg Oncol 2013; 107: 335-342.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Renard AJ, Veth RP, Schreuder HWB. et al. Function and complications after ablative and limb-salvage therapy in lower extremity sarcoma of bone. J Surg Oncol 2000; 73: 198-205.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pollard J, Hamilton GA, Rush SM. et al. Mortality and morbidity after transmetatarsal amputation: retrospective review of 101 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006; 45: 91-97.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ. et al. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic limb devices and related services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 723-729.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mich PM. The emerging role of veterinary orthotics and prosthetics (V-OP) in small animal rehabilitation and pain management. Top Companion Anim Med 2014; 29: 10-19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brown DC, Boston R, Coyne JC. et al. A novel approach to the use of animals in studies of pain: validation of the canine brief pain inventory in canine bone cancer. Pain Med 2009; 10: 133-142.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yazbek K, Fantoni DT. Validity of a health-related quality-of-life scale for dogs with signs of pain secondary to cancer. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 226: 1354-1358.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brown D. Evidence-Based Medicine and Outcomes Assessment. In Tobias KM, Johnson AJ. editors Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012: Pg.140-145.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Dickerson VM, Coleman KD, Ogawa M. et al. Outcomes of dogs undergoing limb amputation, owner satisfaction with limb amputation procedures, and owner perceptions regarding postsurgical adaptation: 64 cases (2005-2012). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015; 247: 786-792.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Buskirk TD, Stein KD. Telephone vs. mail survey gives different SF-36 quality-of-life scores among cancer survivors. J Clin Epi 2008; 61: 1049-1055.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Robinson V, Sansam K, Hirst L. et al. Major lower limb amputation - what, why and how to achieve the best results. Orthop Trauma 2010; 24: 276-285.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC. et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 659-663.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Salawu A, Middleton C, Gilbertson A. et al. Stump ulcers and continued prosthetic limb use. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006; 30: 279-285.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lyon CC, Kulkarni J, Zimerson E. et al. Skin disorders in amputees. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42: 501-507.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rosenberg DE, Turner AP, Littman AJ. et al. Body mass index patterns following dysvascular lower extremity amputation. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35: 1269-1275.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar