In vitro comparison between a DCP and external fixator for pancarpal arthrodesis in the dog.

Abstract

Many clinical reports have previously documented the advantages of plates or external fixations but surgeons prefer to use plate for better acceptance by the owner, less dressing and a decreased rate of infection. In order to address complications of carpal surgery, infections, arthritis and osteomyelitis, external fixation is warranted. Twelve canine forelimbs, free of abnormality, were tested under compression to evaluate the in vitro biomechanical behaviour of the normal carpus. This behaviour was compared with that of a stabilized carpus stabilised by panarthrodesis with either plates (8 hole 3.5 mm dynamic compression plate (DCP), or a type II external fixator. Deformation vs. load was recorded after compression with a testing machine in conjunction with a digital data acquisition system. Yield load, maximal load to failure and stiffness were then calculated. Variables were significantly greater for arthrodesis with external fixation and plates than for intact forelimbs. The stiffness and the MLF after stabilisation with plates or external fixators did not differ significantly. At MLF, fracture of the third metacarpus appeared with plates, whereas deformations of the pins and bars of the external fixators increased with load. Stabilisation with plate or external fixation allowed more load to failure than the intact carpus. The biomechanical behaviour of both methods of arthrodesis was identical during loading. However, after rupture, external fixation was more plastic. External fixation, which is less often used than plates for pancarpal arthrodesis, mainly due to the occurrence of sepsis, may be useful for arthrodesis of the carpus in big or active dogs.