Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(03): 165-171
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-11-0158
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Biomechanical comparison of a novel castless arthrodesis plate with T-plate and cross pin techniques for canine partial carpal arthrodesis

N. J. Burton
1   School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford Bristol, UK
,
A. W. Miles
1   School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford Bristol, UK
,
P. Pollintine
2   Centre for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, U.K
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 11 November 2011

Accepted 02 January 2013

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To describe a novel canine castless partial carpal arthrodesis plate (par-CA) and its ex vivo biomechanical comparison with T-plate and cross pinning techniques for canine partial carpal arthrodesis.

Methods: The three implant systems were applied to three cohorts of six forelimbs from Greyhounds euthanatized for reasons unrelated to the study. Intercarpal and carpometacarpal palmar fibrocartilage and ligaments were sectioned. Potentiometers were applied between the radial carpal and third metacarpal bones to measure micromotion, and limbs were loaded at 30% of bodyweight at 1 Hertz for 10,000 cycles on a servo-hydraulic universal testing machine. Following assessment of micromotion, limbs were loaded to failure at 20 mm/s and ultimate strength, ultimate displacement, and stiffness were measured.

Results: The T-plate (p <0.01) and par-CA (p <0.01) had reduced micromotion relative to the cross pin constructs but there was no significant difference between the control, T-plate and par-CA constructs. There was no significant difference in ultimate strength between constructs. Ultimate displacement was reduced in the plated constructs. Stiffness did not differ between constructs.

Clinical significance: The novel par-CA construct was biomechanically similar to the T-plate and both were superior to cross pins in resisting micromotion. There was no difference in load at failure between constructs. The par-CA plate permits radial and ulnar carpal bone compression, a more distal location of the plate to limit impingement, and placement of screws in two metacarpal bones; features which may offer clinical benefits over T-plate fixation.

Keywords

canine - partial carpal arthrodesis - castless plate
 

  • References

  • 1 Farrow CS. Carpal sprain injury in the dog. J Am Vet Radio Soc 1977; 18: 38-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Slocum B, Devine T. Partial carpal arthrodesis in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1982; 180: 1204-1208.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fossum TW. Diseases of Joints. In: Fossum TW, Hedlund CS, Johnson AL. et al. editors Small Animal Surgery. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. p. 1143-1315.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Johnson KA. Carpal arthrodesis in dogs. Aust Vet J 1980; 56: 565-573.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Parker RB, Brown SG, Wind AP. Pancarpal arthrodesis in the dog: a review of 45 cases. Vet Surg 1981; 10: 35-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Haburjak JJ, Lenehan TM, Davidson CD. et al. Treatment of carpometacarpal and middle carpal joint hyperextension injuries with partial carpal arthrodesis using a cross pin technique: 21 cases. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 105-111.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gambardella PC, Griffiths RC. Treatment of hyperextension injuries of the canine carpus. Compend Cont Ed Pract Vet 1982; 4: 127-131.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Willer RL, Johnson KA, Turner TM. et al. Partial carpal arthrodesis for third degree carpal spra. In: A review of 45 Carpi. Vet Surg 1990; 19: 334-340.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Smith MM, Spagnola J. T-plate for middle carpal and carpometacarpal arthrodesis in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 199: 230-232.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Denny HR, Barr ARS. Partial carpal and pancarpal arthrodesis in the dog: a review of 50 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1991; 32: 329-334.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Andreoni AA, Rytz U, Yannini R. et al. Ground reaction force profiles after partial and pancarpal arthrodesis in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 1-6.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Newton CD. Arthrodesis of the shoulder, elbow and carpus. In: Textbook of Small Animal Orthopaedics. Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. editors. Philadelphia: JB Lippencott Co; 1985. p. 565-570.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Lesser AS. Arthrodesis. In: Slatter DH. ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 1985. p. 2263-2276.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Early T. Canine carpal ligament injuries. Vet Clin North Am 1978; 8: 183-199.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dyce J. Arthrodesis in the dog. In Pract 1996; 18: 267-279.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Oakley RE. External coaptation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 1083-1098.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Anderson DM, White RAS. Ischaemic bandage injuries: A case series and review of the literature. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 488-498.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Meeson RL, Davidson C, Arthurs GI. Soft-tissue injuries associated with cast application for distal limb orthopaedic conditions. A retrospective study of sixty dogs and cats. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 126-131.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Clarke SP, Ferguson JF, Miller A. Clinical evaluation of pancarpal arthrodesis using a castless plate in 11 dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 852-860.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Whitelock RG, Dyce J, Houlton JE. Metacarpal fractures associated with pancarpal arthrodesis in dogs. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 25-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Piermattei DL. The thoracic limb. In: An Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. Piermattei DL. editor. ((CITY OF PUBLISHING)): Saunders; 1993. p. 206-208.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Gheduzzi S, Miles AW. A review of pre-clinical testing of femoral stem subsidence and comparison with clinical data. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2007; 221: 39-46.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ordway NR, Rim BC, Tan R. et al. Anterior cervical interbody constructs: Effect of a repetitive compressive force on the endplate. J Orthop Res 2012; 30: 587-592.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kirpensteijn J, van den Bos R, van den Brom WE. et al. Ground reaction force analysis of large breed dogs when walking after amputation of a limb. Vet Rec 2000; 146: 155-159.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Larson S, Kim W, Caja VL. et al. Effect of early axial dynamization on tibial bone healing: a study in dogs. Clin Orthop Relat Re 2001; 388: 240-251.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lewis DD, Bronson DG, Samchukow ML. et al. Biomechanics of circular external skeletal fixation. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 454-464.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lotsikas PJ, Radasch RM. A clinical evaluation of pancarpal arthrodesis in nine dogs using circular external skeletal fixation. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 480-485.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chambers JN, Bjorling DE. Palmar surface plating for arthrodesis of the canine carpus. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1982; 18: 875-882.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hammer WI. The wrist and hand. In: Hammer WI. (ed). Functional Soft Tissue Examination and Treatment by Manual Methods. Massachusetts: Jones Bartlett; 2007. p. 220-224.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Merrell GA, McDermott EM, Weiss A-PC. Four-corner arthrodesis using a circular plate and distal radius bone grafting: A consecutive case series. J Hand Surg 2008; 33: 635-642.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ho PC. Arthroscopic partial wrist fusion. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2008; 12: 242-265.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wind AP. The Radiocarpal Joint. In: Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. Borjab MK. editor. Philadelphia: Lea Febiger; 1975. p. 542-548.
    Google Scholar