Retrospective study on fractures in dogs

Appendicular fractures of traumatic etiology in dogs: 955 cases (2004-2013)

“…However, in the forelimb, radius and ulna are the bones with the most fractures (BENNOUR et al, 2014), due to low local muscle coverage (MILOVANCEV & RALPHS, 2004). These data correspond to those observed by the authors of this study, which verified that femur fractures were the most prevalent, followed by the tibia and fibula fractures in the hind limbs and radius and ulna fractures, followed by humerus fractures were the most prevalent in forelimbs data that corroborate with MINAR et al (2013). According to KUMAR et al (2007), the highest prevalence of fractures in the hind limbs in dogs is correlated with anatomical conformation provided by the standing position of the animals, making them slower to react to trauma.…”

“…In this study, about 2/3 of the dogs showed the age of three years. Similar results were observed in other retrospective evaluations by SOUZA et al (2011), BEN ALI (2013) and MINAR et al (2013. When considering the age group, younger dogs were more prevalent as they were under development, with low density bones in osteogenesis phase, which can be fragile even for injuries of lower intensities (MINAR et al, 2013) and, due to the inability to avoid them (VIDANE et al, 2014).…”

“…However, MINAR et al (2013) observed that 33.4% of the fractures have occurred in the hind limbs and 27.3% in the forelimb, or a relationship between pelvic: thoracic 1.2. However, in this study, there was an intermediate relationship, once fractures of the hind limbs represent 48.5% of the cases and the thoracic limbs, 28%, resulting in a relationship between pelvic: thoracic 1.7.…”

“…Additionally, it is noteworthy that Pinscher and Poodle breeds presented a higher prevalence of the radius and ulna fractures. MINAR et al (2013), while evaluating the dogs referred to the Veterinary Medical Center of Chungbuk National Ciência Rural, v.46, n.3, mar, 2016.…”

“…From these records, it was evaluated the data referring to the type of disease and its location (anatomical structure affected), probable causing agent and the information that characterized the animal, such as breed, age, gender and weight. The choice of the information collected was based on other retrospective studies (FIGHERA et al, 2008a;SHEARER, 2011;SOUZA et al, 2011;MINAR et al, 2013;BENNOUR et al, 2014). The dogs were divided into four age groups: juvenile (less than one year old), young adult (between one and three years), mature adult (between three and 10 years) and geriatric (above 10 years), according to the methodology used by SHEARER (2011).…”