Open reduction and cranial bone plate fixation of fractures involving the distal aspect of the radius and ulna in miniature- and toy-breed dogs: 102 cases (2008–2015)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine outcomes and complication rates of open reduction and cranial bone plate fixation of fractures involving the distal aspect of the radius and ulna in miniature- and toy-breed dogs. DESIGN Retrospective case series. ANIMALS 102 miniature- and toy-breed dogs (105 fractures) weighing ≤ 7 kg (15.4 lb) that had undergone open reduction and cranial bone plate fixation of a fracture involving the distal aspect of the radius and ulna from 2008 through 2015. PROCEDURES Medical records were reviewed and information extracted regarding dog and fracture characteristics, surgical variables, and follow-up examination data (including postoperative complications). Postoperative radiographs were examined for distal fragment size, implant placement, apposition, alignment, and healing stage. A long-term follow-up questionnaire was completed by telephone interview with dog owners at least 6 months after surgery. RESULTS Mean length of the distal bone fragment in all fractures was 19.2 mm, with a mean distal-to-total radial length ratio of 0.21. At last follow-up examination (typically 6 weeks after surgery), 97 (95%) dogs had no signs of lameness; minor lameness was identified in 5 (5%) dogs. Complications developed in 26 (25%) fractures (23 [22%] minor and 3 [3%] major complications). Sixty-eight of 71 (96%) owners rated the overall and long-term outcome as excellent and 3 (4%) as good; 68 of 71 (96%) dogs reportedly had no signs of residual lameness. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Open reduction and cranial bone plate fixation for the treatment of radius-ulna fractures in miniature- and toy-breed dogs provided an excellent outcome with a low complication rate.

Clinical outcomes of 119 miniature‐ and toy‐breed dogs with 140 distal radial and ulnar fractures repaired with free‐form multiplanar type II external skeletal fixation

“…Plate fixation has been reported as a successful method for distal RUF in miniature‐ and toy‐breed dogs . Potential complications associated with plate fixation include skin and soft tissue irritation by the residual implants, implant loosening or migration, osteopenia or refracture . Unlike plate fixation, the entire ESF implant is removed after healing, precluding long‐term implant‐associated complications.…”

“…The strength of the multiplanar type II ESF in the present study seemed adequate, as evidenced by bone union. Refracture has been reported in 0–18% of fractures treated by plate fixation, but remains unknown after ESF. To prevent excessive loading of the fracture before bone density was restored, exercise was restricted, and a reinforced Robert‐Jones bandage incorporated with a splint was applied for a relatively long time in our study.…”

“…Radius and ulna fractures (RUF) are common orthopedic injuries in dogs, especially in miniature‐ and toy‐breed dogs . Dogs with RUF have frequently been reported to be young dogs, but adult to geriatric dogs are also affected . Most RUF in miniature‐ and toy‐breed dogs occur after minor trauma and usually affect the distal region of the diaphysis or metaphysis .…”

“…Several techniques of distal radial and ulnar fracture fixation in miniature‐ and toy‐breed dogs with casts, intramedullary pins, bone plates, and external skeletal fixation (ESF) have been reported . The biological and mechanical advantages of ESF include minimal damage to blood supply of the bone and soft tissue, stabilization of open fractures, versatility in implants and configuration options, and adjustability of the fixator .…”

A Biomechanical Comparison of Three Miniature Locking Plate Systems in a Rabbit Radial and Ulnar Fracture Model

“…Fractures of the radius and ulna account for 17% of all canine fractures and are especially common in miniature or toy breed dogs. [1][2][3][4][5] Fractures of this type are often caused by minor trauma, such as small jumps or falls, 3 and most frequently occur in the distal third of the radius and ulna. 2,6 Notably, the small width and thickness of these bones, in proportion to overall body size, are expected to confer low biomechanical strength, in contrast to that observed in larger dogs; this difference is likely to contribute to fractures.…”