Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Ex vivo comparison of three surgical techniques to stabilize canine cranial cruciate ligament deficient stifles.
- Journal:
- Veterinary surgery : VS
- Year:
- 2010
- Authors:
- Snow, Lynne A et al.
- Affiliation:
- Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences · United States
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
This study looked at three different surgical methods to stabilize the knee joint in dogs that have a torn cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL), which is similar to an ACL injury in humans. Researchers tested these methods on dog leg samples to see how well they could prevent movement in the knee after the ligament was damaged. They found that all three techniques helped reduce movement in the knee compared to when the ligament was completely torn, but the methods using modified retinacular imbrication (MRIT) and anatometric fascia lata translocation (AFLT) worked similarly to a healthy ligament. However, the technique using a hamstring graft (HG) showed more movement than the intact ligament. Overall, all three techniques were effective in stabilizing the knee to some degree after a ligament injury.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare canine stifle stability after 3 stabilization techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Adult canine cadaveric pelvic limbs. METHODS: Total craniocaudal (CrCa) tibial translation quantified in stifles with the cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL) intact, transected, and stabilized with 1 of 3 techniques: (1) hamstring graft (HG); (2) modified retinacular imbrication (MRIT); (3) anatometric fascia lata translocation (AFLT). Tibial translation was quantified from radiographs generated during application of cranial and caudal forces to the tibia. After removal of all soft tissues except periarticular ligaments and fixation, CrCa tibial translation, as before, and medial-lateral rotation, via torsional loading, was quantified with an active motion analysis system. Total tibial translation was evaluated for effect of technique and cruciate status using mixed effect linear model with significance considered at P-value <.05. RESULTS: CrCa translation was not significantly different across stabilization techniques with CrCLs intact, transected, or after stabilization. Poststabilization translation was significantly less than posttransection for all techniques. Compared with the intact CrCL, CrCa translation poststabilization after HG was significantly greater whereas poststabilization after MRIT and AFLT was not significantly different. Tibial rotation exceeded instrumentation limits in 62.5% HG limbs, 20% MRIT limbs, and 60% AFLT limbs. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 stifle stabilization techniques confer comparable CrCa translational stability after CrCL disruption with that provided by the MRIT and AFLT techniques comparable to the intact CrCL. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The extra- and intracapsular techniques evaluated in this study reduced CrCa tibial translation in CrCL deficient stifles to varying amounts.
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: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20210967/