Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of meta-bone fracture treatment
in dogs and cats when treated conservatively versus surgically, with both open and
closed approaches. Secondary objectives aimed to evaluate the effect of variables
such as external coaptation and adherence to previously published treatment guidelines
on healing. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes between
fractures managed conservatively versus surgically and between those repaired with
an open versus closed approach.
Materials and Methods: Medical records (April 2010–July 2024) were searched for dogs and cats treated for
meta-bone fractures. Information was collected regarding fracture description, treatment,
external coaptation, radiographic healing, clinical outcome, and complications. Data
was compared between cases managed surgically and conservatively.
Results: Twenty-two cases were managed conservatively and 31 were surgically. The time between
fracture and treatment was shorter in the conservative group. Both weight-bearing
digits were fractured in 45/53 cases and had similar outcomes with surgical versus
conservative treatment. The mean length of time with external coaptation did not differ
between groups (46.5 vs. 39.8 days). The overall success rate was 92.5%, with no difference
in outcome or time to radiographic union. There was a 49.1% complication rate. Eighteen
out of 21 cases had successful outcomes when treated conservatively against published
guidelines.
Discussion/Conclusion: This study has several limitations inherent to its retrospective nature. Findings
showed no significant difference in fracture outcomes between conservative versus
surgical treatment. Most reported complications were secondary to bandage morbidity
and poor owner compliance. The radiographic union does not always correlate with successful
clinical outcomes.
Acknowledgment
None.
