Comparable application metrics but poor clinical acceptability of thermoplastic and premade splints applied by novice bandagers in a canine hock cadaver model.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of premade plastic versus thermoplastic splints when applied by novice practitioners. METHODS: 15 bandagers used 2 types of premade splint materials to place hock splints on cadavers. Each participant was instructed to place 2 hind limb splints on a canine cadaver using a premade plastic splint on one side and thermoplastic splint on the other side. The time to place each splint was self-recorded. Participants filled out a questionnaire after splint placement. A single surgeon judged the splints with a qualitative scoring system, which was used to determine whether splints were clinically acceptable. RESULTS: The mean ± SD time it took to place the splints was 9.4 ± 2.1 minutes for premade splints and 12.0 ± 2.3 minutes for thermoplastic splints. Seven participants (47%) preferred the premade splints and 8 (53%) preferred the thermoplastic splints. The premade splint was scored as superior in 10 of 15 cadavers (67%), the thermoplastic splint was scored as superior in 4 of 15 cadavers (27%), and both were equal in 1 cadaver (10%). Four of the 15 premade splints (26%) and 3 of the 15 thermoplastic splints (20%) were deemed clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Premade and thermoplastic splints were comparable to each other for novices, but there was a low number of clinically acceptable splints. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Splint types had similar utility for use in practice, but overall splint placement skill needs improvement.