Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Dog recovery 6 months after new ligament implant surgery
By Johnson, Tiffany A & Conzemius, Michael G·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2022·Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, United States·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of ten large breed dogs with knee problems due to a torn cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) received a new type of implant made from enhanced polyethylene terephthalate (PET) to replace the damaged ligament. After six months, all dogs showed improvement in their ability to walk and move, but only two of the implants were still intact. Four implants were partially functioning, while three had completely torn. One dog developed an infection and had to leave the study. While the dogs felt better overall, the durability of the PET implant raises concerns for future use.
People also search for: dog knee surgery recovery · CCL tear treatment in large breed dogs · polyethylene terephthalate implant for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the 6-month outcome and survival of enhanced polyethylene terephthalate (PET) implants as a replacement for the cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) in dogs with spontaneous CCL disease (CCLD). STUDY DESIGN: Pilot, prospective case series. ANIMALS: Ten client-owned large breed dogs with unilateral spontaneous CCLD. METHODS: Dogs were evaluated before and 6 months after intra-articular placement of a PET implant with the Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs questionnaire and force platform gait analysis. Arthroscopy was performed 6 months after surgery to visually assess implant integrity. RESULTS: Scores on owner questionnaires and limb asymmetry improved in all dogs that reached the 6-month time point, by 51.7% (p = .008) and 86% (p = .002), respectively. The PET implant appeared intact and functioning in two stifles, partially intact and functioning in four stifles and completely torn in three stifles. One dog had an implant infection and was removed from the study. Evidence of deterioration and tearing occurred in the midbody of the implant. CONCLUSION: Although function improved over the course of this study, only 2/10 implants appeared intact 6 months after placement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Implant survivability prohibits further clinical investigation using this implant.
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/36165283/