Radius and Ulna Fractures

Question 1

Garofolo and Pozzi, Vet Surg, 2013:

Which technique caused greater damage to the extraosseous blood supply of the radius - ORIF or MIPO?

Answer 1

Garofolo and Pozzi, Vet Surg, 2013:

ORIF caused greater damage to the extraosseous blood supply than MIPO

Question 2

Pozzi, Vet Surg, 2013:

1. Differences in working lengths of the plates in MIPO vs ORIF?
2. Was translational malalignment in the frontal plane greater for MIPO or ORIF?
3. Were there any differences in healing time between MIPO and ORIF?

Answer 2

Pozzi, Vet Surg, 2013:

1. Working length of the plates applied in MIPO was longer than in ORIF
2. Translational malalignment in the frontal plane was greater with MIPO
3. No difference in healing times

Question 3

Uhl, Vet Surg, 2013:

1. Plate strains for cranial vs medial plates?
2. Were superior failure mechanics obtained with cranial or medial plates?

Answer 3

Uhl, Vet Surg, 2013:

1. Cranial plate strains: 2-4%
   Medial plate strains: 4-13%
2. Cranial plate constructs had superior failure mechanics

Question 4

Gibert, VCOT, 2015:
Locking plate stabilization

1. Outcomes?
2. Advantages of the notched head T-plates?

Answer 4

Gibert, VCOT, 2015:

1. Excellent outcome
2. The notched head T-plate allowed placement of 2 locking screws even in the shortest bone fragment, and also allowed contouring of the 2 distal holes independently without compromising the thread holes and locking mechanism

Question 5

Kang, VCOT, 2016:
Mini locking plate system

What % achieved union and successful return to normal function within a mean of 8 weeks post-op?

Answer 5

Kang, VCOT, 2016:

100% achieved union and successful return to normal function within a mean of 8 weeks post-op

Question 6

Preston, Vet Surg, 2016:
Dual bone fixation in cats - LCP in radius + ulna vs LCP in radius + IM pin in ulna vs LCP in radius alone

1. Difference in failure loads?
2. Differences in axial compressive stiffness?
3. Differences in caudocranial bending stiffness?

Answer 6

Preston, Vet Surg, 2016:

1. Failure load was higher for the double LCP compared to the LCP + IM pin and the LCP alone
2. Axial compressive stiffness was higher for the double LCP and LCP + IM pin compared to the LCP alone
3. Caudocranial bending stiffness was higher for the double LCP and LCP + IM pin compared to the LCP alone

Question 7

Nelson and Strom, VCOT, 2017:
1.5mm locking adaption plate vs 2.0mm LC-DCP

1. Major complication rate for locking adaption plate vs LC-DCP?
2. What fracture configuration was most commonly associated with complications?

Answer 7

Nelson and Strom, VCOT, 2017:

1. Locking adaption plate: 50% major complication rate
   LC-DCP: 14% major complication rate
2. Short oblique fracture configurations were most commonly associated with complications

Question 8

De Arburn Parent, JAVMA, 2017:
Cranial bone plate fixation

1. Complication rate?
2. What % developed osteopenia?
3. Outcomes?

Answer 8

De Arburn Parent, JAVMA, 2017:

1. 25% complication rate
2. 21% developed osteopenia but it was not associated with lameness or re-fracture
3. Excellent outcomes

Question 9

Watrous, VCOT, 2018:
1.5mm LCP vs 1.5mm straight plate vs 2.0mm straight plate

1. Which plate had the highest stiffness?
2. 1.5mm LCP vs 1.5mm straight plate?

Answer 9

Watrous, VCOT, 2018:

1. The 2.0mm straight plate had the highest stiffness
2. The larger hole-to-hole distance of the 1.5mm LCP compared to the 1.5mm straight plate could limit the number of screws that can be placed in a small fragment, and the torsional stiffness of the 1.5mm LCP was not statistically different from that of the 1.5mm straight plate

Question 10

Aikawa, VCOT, 2018:
ORIF

1. Minor complication rate?
2. Major complication rate?

Answer 10

Aikawa, VCOT, 2018:

1. 11% minor complication rate
2. 6% major complication rate

Question 11

Bierens, Vet Surg, 2017:
IMEX mini CESF

1. What % achieved radiographic union within a median of 59 days?
2. Did the use of demineralized bone matrix (allograft) in 46% of the cases affect healing time?
3. 20% of the cases were dynamized - what were the effect(s)?
4. Minor complication rate?
5. Major complication rate
6. Outcomes?

Answer 11

Bierens, Vet Surg, 2017:

1. 98% achieved radiographic union
2. No difference in healing time with the use of demineralized bone matrix
3. Fractures that were dynamized took longer to achieve radiographic union
4. 56% minor complication rate
5. 2% major complication rate
6. 65% excellent outcome, 30% good outcome, 5% fair outcome

Question 12

Aikawa, Vet Surg, 2019:
Free-form multiplanar type II ESF

1. What % healed in a median of 60 days?
2. Major complication rate?

Answer 12

Aikawa, Vet Surg, 2019:

1. 100% healed in a median of 60 days
2. 3% major complication rate

Question 13

Ree, Vet Surg, 2018:
Autologous greater omentum free graft vs autogenous cancellous bone graft

1. Minor complication rate with omental graft vs bone graft?
2. Major complication rate with omental graft vs bone graft?
3. Effects of omental graft on ground reaction forces?
4. What % developed osteopenia with omental graft vs bone graft?
5. Adverse effects of the omental graft?

Answer 13

Ree, Vet Surg, 2018:

1. Minor complications: 64% for omental graft vs 17% for bone graft
2. Major complications: 0% for omental graft vs 8% for bone graft
3. The omental graft group had improved ground reaction forces (increased peak vertical force and vertical impulse) and earlier return to weight-bearing
4. Osteopenia developed in 36% of the omental graft group vs 58% of the bone graft group
5. Adverse effects of the omental graft were limb swelling and erythema in 64% of the dogs due to reactive omentum becoming enlarged and edematous

Question 14

Munakata, VCOT, 2018:
Frozen cortical bone allograft + cancellous bone autograft + FGF-2 for nonunion

What % of cases achieved radiographic bone union and bone remodelling?

Answer 14

Munakata, VCOT, 2018:

100% of cases achieved radiographic bone union and bone remodelling