DOI
https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v9i1.677Abstract
PICO Question
In skeletally immature dogs with simple non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures does internal fixation compared with external fixation result in less postoperative complications and improved fracture healing?
Clinical bottom line
Category of research
Treatment.
Number and type of study designs reviewed
There were no publications that answered the PICO question.
Strength of evidence
None.
Outcomes reported
Both external skeletal fixation and internal fixation are reported as techniques for diaphyseal tibial and fibular fracture management in companion animals, though no study has been reported to compare these techniques directly, or to report fracture healing and postoperative complications in skeletally immature dogs with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial fractures.
Conclusion
Given the absence of evidence answering the PICO, choice and recommendation on treatment for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs should be decided on personal experience and stabilisation methods available to the veterinarian such as external fixation or internal fixation. Both surgical techniques have been reported in skeletally mature and immature dogs with diaphyseal tibial fractures, but not specifically in skeletally immature patients with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures. They are both applicable methods of fixation for tibial fractures in companion animals, though there is lacking evidence for which has more favourable outcomes for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs as no studies have directly compared these stabilisation techniques.
How to apply this evidence in practice
The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
References
Aronsohn, M.G. & Burk, R.L. (2009). Unilateral uniplanar external skeletal fixation for isolated diaphyseal tibial fractures in skeletally immature dogs. Veterinary Surgery. 38(5), 654–658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950x.2009.00553.x
Aydin, U., Özaydin, I., Aksoy, O., Ermutlu, C., Kilic, C., Yildiz, U. & Tanriverdi, E. (2022). Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Tie-in Osteosynthesis with Intramedullary Threaded Pin in Diaphyseal Humeral, Tibial, and Femoral Fractures in Dogs. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi. 28(5), 593–599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2022.27646
Beale, B. & McCally, R. (2020). Minimally invasive fracture repair of the tibia and fibula. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 50(1), 183–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2019.08.008
Boero Baroncelli, A., Peirone, B., Winter, M., Reese, D. & Pozzi, A. (2012). Retrospective comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open plating for tibial fractures in dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 25(5), 410–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3415/vcot-11-07-0097
El-Shafey, S., El-Mezyen, A., Behery, A. & El-Raeuf. M. (2022). Tibial and fibular fractures in dogs and cats: Retrospective study. Zagazig Veterinary Journal. 50(1), 52–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/zvjz.2022.111997.1168
Beever, L., Giles, K. & Meeson, R. (2018). Postoperative complications associated with external skeletal fixators in dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 31(02), 137–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1627477
Gül, N.Y. & Yanik, K. (2006). Management of tibial fractures with Orthofix axial external skeletal fixator in 15 dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 19(04), 228–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1633005
Haaland, P., Devor, M., Haug, A. & Sjöström, L. (2009). Appendicular fracture repair in dogs using the locking compression plate system: 47 cases. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 22(4), 309–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3415/vcot08-05-0044
Hammer, R.R., Hammerby, S. & Lindholm, B. (1985). Accuracy of radiologic assessment of tibial shaft fracture union in humans. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198510000-00033
Hayashi, K. & Kapatkin, A.S. (2018). Fractures of the tibia and fibula. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM, eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed. Elsevier Saunders; St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 1176–1193.
McCartney, W. (1998). Use of the modified acrylic external fixator in 54 dogs and 28 cats. Veterinary Record. 143(12), 330–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.143.12.330
Pettit, G.D. (1992). History of external skeletal fixation. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 22(1), 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-5616(92)50001-8
Sherman, A.H., Kraus, K., Watt, D., Yuan, L. & Mochel, J. (2022). Linear external skeletal fixation applied in minimally invasive fashion for stabilization of nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Veterinary Surgery. 52(2), 249–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13911
Turk, R., Singh, A. & Weese, J. S. (2015). Prospective Surgical Site Infection Surveillance in Dogs. Veterinary Surgery. 44(1), 2–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950x.2014.12267.x
Vallefuoco, R., Savin, A., Decambron, A., Manassero, M., Viateau, V., Gauthier, O. & Fayolle, P. (2016). Complications of appendicular fracture repair in cats and small dogs using locking compression plates. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology.
(01), 46–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3415/vcot-14-09-0146
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jake Chitty, Paul Aldridge
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Veterinary Evidence uses the Creative Commons copyright Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That means users are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially - with the appropriate citation.
