• Antonio Pozzi, Caleb C Hudson, Christopher M Gauthier, and Daniel D Lewis.
• Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. PozziA@ufl.edu
• Vet Surg. 2013 Jan 1; 42 (1): 19-27.

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of reduction, time to union, and clinical outcome of radius and ulna fractures stabilized using either minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).Study DesignRetrospective, case-controlled study.AnimalsDogs with radius and ulna fractures stabilized with plates applied using MIPO (n = 15) or ORIF (n = 15).MethodsDogs in each stabilization group were matched for type and location of fracture, age, and body weight. Outcome measures including surgical time, fracture alignment, gap width, plate length, plate bridging and span ratio, working length and screw density, and time to union were compared between the groups using an unpaired t-test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.ResultsAll fractures obtained radiographic union although infection developed in 1 dog in each stabilization group. Dogs treated with MIPO had a significant longer plate working length and lesser screw-density (P < .05). No statistical difference was found in operating time, postoperative alignment, gap width, or time to union (MIPO: 51.9 ± 18.4 days; ORIF: 49.5 ± 26.5 days).ConclusionsRadius and ulna fractures managed with MIPO had similar alignment, reduction, and time to union as fractures managed with ORIF. Future prospective clinical studies are warranted and should assess healing more frequently and in a standardized manner to compare MIPO to ORIF in a larger population of dogs.© Copyright 2012 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.

26 keywords...

hide…