Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Limb lengthening in three dogs without waiting period using fast
By McCartney, W T·Published in Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T·2008·Marie Louise Veterinary Hospital·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Limb lengthening in three dogs using distraction rates without a latency period. Radius/ulna, tibia, femur.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Three dogs with limb shortening due to a growth plate issue underwent a procedure to lengthen their bones. Using specialized fixators, the dogs had their bones gradually lengthened at rates of up to 3 mm per day. Although there were some complications like pin loosening and minor bending of the fixator, these did not affect the overall success of the surgeries. After the treatment, all three dogs showed good recovery and improved function in their limbs.
People also search for: dog limb lengthening surgery · dog bone growth issues · dog fixator complications
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report three clinical cases suffering from limb shortening secondary to monostotic physeal closure, in which distraction osteogenesis had been performed without a latency period and with high distraction rates. METHODS: Three dogs had limb lengthening performed, using an Ilizarov ring fixator in two dogs and a linear dynamic fixator in the other dog. Bone lengthening achieved for a radius/ulna was 27 mm at 2 mm per day , a tibia was 78 mm at 3 mm per day, and a femur of 45 mm was 3 mm per day . RESULTS: Complications related to pin loosening occurred in each case, thus requiring surgical corrective procedures, but these did not affect the final outcome. Lateral bowing of the bar and bone and some musculo-cutendinous contracture occurred in the femur. Fixation frames were on for 12 weeks in Case 1, eight weeks in Case 2 and nine weeks in Case 3. All three of the cases had a good functional outcome. DISCUSSION: The faster rates of lengthening were not associated with any long-term deleterious soft tissue complications, but they were associated with pin loosening and bending of the bar. In each case there was excellent osteogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: From the results achieved in these three cases it can be concluded that a latency period prior to distraction osteogenesis may not be necessary. Also, distraction rates up to 3 mm per day can be used to shorten the time needed to achieve lengthening; however further studies are needed to investigate the high level of complications.
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/19011709/