Cargando…

Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe the type, presentation and prognostic factors of feline humeral fractures over a 10-year period and to compare three stabilisation systems for feline humeral diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: In total, 101 cats with humeral fractures presenting to sev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gall, Nick, Parsons, Kevin, Radke, Heidi, Comerford, Eithne, Mielke, Ben, Grierson, James, Ryan, John, Addison, Elena, Logethelou, Vasileia, Blaszyk, Agnieszka, Langley-Hobbs, Sorrel J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35254143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221080600
_version_ 1784719380863516672
author Gall, Nick
Parsons, Kevin
Radke, Heidi
Comerford, Eithne
Mielke, Ben
Grierson, James
Ryan, John
Addison, Elena
Logethelou, Vasileia
Blaszyk, Agnieszka
Langley-Hobbs, Sorrel J
author_facet Gall, Nick
Parsons, Kevin
Radke, Heidi
Comerford, Eithne
Mielke, Ben
Grierson, James
Ryan, John
Addison, Elena
Logethelou, Vasileia
Blaszyk, Agnieszka
Langley-Hobbs, Sorrel J
author_sort Gall, Nick
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe the type, presentation and prognostic factors of feline humeral fractures over a 10-year period and to compare three stabilisation systems for feline humeral diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: In total, 101 cats with humeral fractures presenting to seven UK referral centres between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed. Data collected included signalment, weight at the time of surgery, fracture aetiology, preoperative presentation, fixation method, surgical details, perioperative management and follow-up examinations. Of these cases, 57 cats with humeral diaphyseal fractures stabilised using three different fixation methods were compared, with outcome parameters including the time to radiographic healing, time to function and complication rate. RESULTS: The majority of the fractures were diaphyseal (71%), with only 10% condylar. Of the known causes of fracture, road traffic accidents (RTAs) were the most common. Neutered males were over-represented in having a fracture caused by an RTA (P = 0.001) and diaphyseal fractures were significantly more likely to result from an RTA (P = 0.01). Body weight had a positive correlation (r = 0.398) with time to radiographic healing and time to acceptable function (r = 0.315), and was significant (P = 0.014 and P = 0.037, respectively). Of the 57 humeral diaphyseal fractures; 16 (28%) were stabilised using a plate–rod construct, 31 (54%) using external skeletal fixation and 10 (18%) using bone plating and screws only. Open diaphyseal fractures were associated with more minor complications (P = 0.048). There was a significant difference between fixation groups in terms of overall complication rate between groups (P = 0.012). There was no significant difference between fixation groups in time to radiographic union (P = 0.145) or time to acceptable function (P = 0.306). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: All three fixation systems were successful in healing a wide variety of humeral diaphyseal fractures. There was a significantly higher overall complication rate with external skeletal fixators compared with bone plating; however, the clinical impact of these is likely low.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9160952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91609522022-06-03 Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020) Gall, Nick Parsons, Kevin Radke, Heidi Comerford, Eithne Mielke, Ben Grierson, James Ryan, John Addison, Elena Logethelou, Vasileia Blaszyk, Agnieszka Langley-Hobbs, Sorrel J J Feline Med Surg Original Articles OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe the type, presentation and prognostic factors of feline humeral fractures over a 10-year period and to compare three stabilisation systems for feline humeral diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: In total, 101 cats with humeral fractures presenting to seven UK referral centres between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed. Data collected included signalment, weight at the time of surgery, fracture aetiology, preoperative presentation, fixation method, surgical details, perioperative management and follow-up examinations. Of these cases, 57 cats with humeral diaphyseal fractures stabilised using three different fixation methods were compared, with outcome parameters including the time to radiographic healing, time to function and complication rate. RESULTS: The majority of the fractures were diaphyseal (71%), with only 10% condylar. Of the known causes of fracture, road traffic accidents (RTAs) were the most common. Neutered males were over-represented in having a fracture caused by an RTA (P = 0.001) and diaphyseal fractures were significantly more likely to result from an RTA (P = 0.01). Body weight had a positive correlation (r = 0.398) with time to radiographic healing and time to acceptable function (r = 0.315), and was significant (P = 0.014 and P = 0.037, respectively). Of the 57 humeral diaphyseal fractures; 16 (28%) were stabilised using a plate–rod construct, 31 (54%) using external skeletal fixation and 10 (18%) using bone plating and screws only. Open diaphyseal fractures were associated with more minor complications (P = 0.048). There was a significant difference between fixation groups in terms of overall complication rate between groups (P = 0.012). There was no significant difference between fixation groups in time to radiographic union (P = 0.145) or time to acceptable function (P = 0.306). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: All three fixation systems were successful in healing a wide variety of humeral diaphyseal fractures. There was a significantly higher overall complication rate with external skeletal fixators compared with bone plating; however, the clinical impact of these is likely low. SAGE Publications 2022-03-07 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9160952/ /pubmed/35254143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221080600 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gall, Nick
Parsons, Kevin
Radke, Heidi
Comerford, Eithne
Mielke, Ben
Grierson, James
Ryan, John
Addison, Elena
Logethelou, Vasileia
Blaszyk, Agnieszka
Langley-Hobbs, Sorrel J
Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title_full Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title_fullStr Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title_short Analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
title_sort analysis of feline humeral fracture morphology and a comparison of fracture repair stabilisation methods: 101 cases (2009–2020)
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35254143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221080600
work_keys_str_mv AT gallnick analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT parsonskevin analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT radkeheidi analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT comerfordeithne analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT mielkeben analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT griersonjames analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT ryanjohn analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT addisonelena analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT logethelouvasileia analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT blaszykagnieszka analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020
AT langleyhobbssorrelj analysisoffelinehumeralfracturemorphologyandacomparisonoffracturerepairstabilisationmethods101cases20092020