Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Does fabella-tibial suture improve dog recovery after knee ligament
By Tivers, M S et al.·Published in Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T·2009·University of Bristol, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Does a fabella-tibial suture alter the outcome for dogs with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency undergoing arthrotomy and caudal pole medial meniscectomy?
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with a torn cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) and a meniscal tear underwent surgery to remove the damaged part of the meniscus. Some of these dogs also had a nylon suture placed to support the knee joint, while others did not. After following up with the owners, it was found that there were no significant differences in recovery or activity levels between the two groups, suggesting that the additional suture may not improve outcomes after surgery. Most dogs were able to return to normal activities over time, regardless of whether they received the suture.
People also search for: dog knee surgery recovery · CCL tear treatment options · meniscus tear in dogs recovery time
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of fabella-tibial suture (FTS) on long-term outcome in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) insufficiency and concurrent medial meniscal tear (MMT) that were managed by an open, caudal pole medial meniscectomy (CPMM). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of the clinical records of dogs treated for CCL insufficiency with concurrent MMT by open CPMM, with or without the non-random addition of a nylon FTS according to surgeon preference, during the period of 2001 to 2004. The Bristol Osteoarthritis in Dogs questionnaire was modified for owner assessment of outcome using a visual analogue scale based on several criteria: level of activity, disability, severity of lameness and frequency of lameness before and after surgery. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires from 31 dog owners were received. A FTS was used after CPMM in 22 dogs (FTS group), but in nine dogs (control group) only a CPMM was performed. The median time to follow up was longer in the FTS group (25 months) than the control group (16 months) (P=0.03). There were not any significant differences between the two groups before and after surgery for the following: disability, activity, frequency of lameness, severity of lameness, ability to climb stairs and ability to sit down. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The placement of a FTS following stifle joint arthrotomy and CPMM in dogs with CCL deficiency and concurrent MMT may not be a significant factor affecting the ultimate surgical outcome, although our study is limited by the non-randomised study design.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19597627/