Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Short-term results of ilial fracture surgery in 59 dogs with locking
By Petrovsky, Brian et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2021·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Short-term outcomes of 59 dogs treated for ilial body fractures with locking or non-locking plates.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 59 dogs with ilial body fractures (a type of pelvic fracture) were treated using either locking or non-locking plates to hold the bones together. The results showed that fractures fixed with non-locking plates were nearly 20 times more likely to fail compared to those fixed with locking plates. Out of the 63 fractures treated, 29% experienced implant failure, primarily in the non-locking plate group. For dogs that had issues, revision surgery was recommended, but those treated with locking plates had better outcomes overall.
People also search for: dog pelvic fracture treatment · locking plate vs non-locking plate for dogs · dog surgery recovery time
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of plating systems on the clinical outcomes in dogs treated for ilial fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Fifty-nine dogs (63 hemipelves). METHODS: Radiographs and medical records of dogs with ilial fractures presented to Iowa State University between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. After fracture reduction, fractures were fixed with a locking plate system (LPS) or non-locking plate system (NLS). Perioperative, long-term complications, and follow-up data were recorded. The frequency of implant failure and pelvic collapse were compared using a logistic and linear regression analysis, respectively. Where the univariate test was statistically significant, a multivariate analysis across categories was performed to identify statistically different categories. RESULTS: LPS and NLS implants were used in 25/63 and 38/63 hemipelves, respectively. Median follow-up time was 8 weeks (3-624 weeks). Implant failure occurred in 18/63 (29%) of fracture repairs, consisting of 17 with NLS and 1 with LPS. Revision surgery was recommended in five cases of implant failure, all with NLS. The probability of implant failure was higher when fractures were fixed with NLS (p = .0056). All other variables evaluated did not seem to influence outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The variable with the most influence on the outcomes of dogs treated for ilial fractures consisted of the fixation method (NLS vs. LPS). Fractures repaired with NLS were nearly 20 times more likely to fail than those repaired with LPS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should consider repairing ilial body fractures in dogs with LPS to reduce the risk of short-term implant failure.
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/33955036/