T H Witsberger1, D A Hulse, S C Kerwin, W B Saunders. 1. Department of Veterinary Small Animal Clinical Services, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA. twitsberger@cvm.tamu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a surgical technique for placement of a minimally invasive radial plate following application of an ulnar rod (MIPR) for treatment of antebrachial fractures. METHODS: Medical records (November 2005-June 2009) were searched to identify dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures stabilised by MIPR. Data retrieved included signalment, weight, limb affected, cause of injury, open versus closed fracture, number of fragments, implant size, number of screws used and cortices engaged, number of open screw holes, operative time, rod removal, complications and time to radiographic healing. To be included, dogs had to have evidence of radiographic healing during follow-up. RESULTS: Eight dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures treated with MIPR were included in the case series. All fractures were due to trauma and two fractures were open (grade 1). Rod loosening and osteomyelitis of the ulna occurred in one case which subsequently resolved with rod removal. Healing occurred in all cases with no implant failures. Median time to radiographic union was 10.5 weeks (mean ± SD = 17 ± 15 weeks; range 4-52 weeks). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of MIPR constructs on diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna is an effective technique for managing these fractures using principles of biological osteosynthesis. An intramedullary rod in the ulna assists with fracture reduction and stabilisation and rod removal is recommended once fracture healing has occurred.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a surgical technique for placement of a minimally invasive radial plate following application of an ulnar rod (MIPR) for treatment of antebrachial fractures. METHODS: Medical records (November 2005-June 2009) were searched to identify dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures stabilised by MIPR. Data retrieved included signalment, weight, limb affected, cause of injury, open versus closed fracture, number of fragments, implant size, number of screws used and cortices engaged, number of open screw holes, operative time, rod removal, complications and time to radiographic healing. To be included, dogs had to have evidence of radiographic healing during follow-up. RESULTS: Eight dogs with diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures treated with MIPR were included in the case series. All fractures were due to trauma and two fractures were open (grade 1). Rod loosening and osteomyelitis of the ulna occurred in one case which subsequently resolved with rod removal. Healing occurred in all cases with no implant failures. Median time to radiographic union was 10.5 weeks (mean ± SD = 17 ± 15 weeks; range 4-52 weeks). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of MIPR constructs on diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna is an effective technique for managing these fractures using principles of biological osteosynthesis. An intramedullary rod in the ulna assists with fracture reduction and stabilisation and rod removal is recommended once fracture healing has occurred.