Comparison of Intramedullary Pin Tie-In Configuration and  Type Ia ESF With Double Connecting Bars for Tibial and  Humeral Fractures in Dogs

Authors

  • Nakul A Dongre Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • B R Balappanavar Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • Nagaraju N Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • Manjunatha Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • Rajashailesha N M Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • Shivakumar V Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India
  • Aswathanarayanappa V Department of Veterinary Surgery & Radiology, Veterinary College, Hassan-573202, KVAFSU, Bidar, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.21.1.01

Keywords:

Canine, Humerus, IMP Tie-in, Long bone, Tibia, Type Ia ESF.

Abstract

 

The current study of intramedullary pin Tie-in configuration (Group I) and Type Ia ESF with double connecting bars (Group II) were  evaluated for repair of tibial and humeral fractures in dogs. The study was conducted in 12 dogs divided into two groups of six each  evaluated for 60 days. Lameness grading done on the post-operative day 1st, 15th, 30th and 60th showed a gradual decrease in lameness  score and progressed to barely noticeable to no lameness on the 60th day. Orthogonal radiographs taken on the 15th post-operative  day revealed callus formation in the majority of the cases in both groups. On the 60th post-operative day, orthogonal radiographs  revealed cortical continuity in the majority of the cases. Complete removal of the fixator was around 70 days. Two cases in Group II had  major complications. All the dogs recovered uneventfully in Group I. The intramedullary pin in Tie-in configuration as well as a second  connecting bar both increased the stiffness of Type Ia ESF. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dias, L.G.G.G., Padilha Filho, J.G., Conceição Mebam, Dias, F.G.G., & Barbosa, V.T. (2018) Description and post-operative evaluation of tie-in technique in tibial osteosynthesis in dogs. Pesqui Veterinária Bras, 38(7), 1376-1381. doi:10.1590/1678-5150-

PVB-5543.

Johnson, K.A. (2013). Piermattei’s Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th edn., Elsevier, W.B. Saunders, p. 127-437.

Kumar, B.B., Sharma, A., Kumar, P., & Kumar, C. (2020). Study on incidence of fractures with respect to breed, age, sex, type and location of fractures and bone involved. Journal of Entomology and Zoological Studies, 8(2), 21-24.

Mathai, V.S. (2012). A clinical study on treatment of long bone fractures using external skeletal fixation in dogs. MVSc Thesis. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati, India.

Nagaraju, N. (2009). Comparison of stainless steel versus acrylic connecting bar for Type Ib external skeletal fixation for tibial fracture in dogs. MVSc Thesis. Karnakta Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar, India.

Pardeshi, G.D., & Ranganath, L. (2008). Comparison of type Ia and type Ib external skeletal fixation for tibial fracture repair in dogs. Indian Journal of Veterinary Surgery, 29(2), 93-95.

Peirone, B., Camuzzini, D., Filippi, D., & Valazza, A. (2002). Femoral and humeral fracture treatment with an intramedullary pin/external fixator tie-in configuration in growing dogs and cats. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 15, 85-91.

Radke, H., Aron, D.N., Applewhite, A., & Zhang, G. (2006). Biomechanical analysis of unilateral external skeletal fixators combined with IM-Pin and without IM-Pin using Finite-Element method. Veterinary Surgery, 35(1), 15-23.

Rao, J.R. (2016). Use of type I, type II, tie-in configurations and hybrid circular external skeletal fixation in the repair of long bone fractures in dogs. PhD Thesis. P.V. Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India.

Reaugh, H.F., Rochat, M.C., Bruce, C.W., Galloway, D.S., & Payton, M.E. (2007). Stiffness of modified Type 1a linear external skeletal fixators. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 20(4), 264-268.

Subhash, V.H. (2010). Clinical studies on tie-in configuration technique for immobilization of femoral fractures in dogs. MVSc Thesis. Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.

Unger, M., Montavon, P.M., & Heim, U.F. (1990). Classification of fractures of long bones in the dog and cat: Introduction and clinical application. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 3, 41-50.

Vani, G., Veena, P., & Suresh Kumar, R. (2022). Incidence of long bone fractures in canine. Indian Journal of Canine Practice, 14(1), 28-29.

Vasseur, M. (1998). Femoral head and neck ostectomy. In: Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. Edt. Bojrob, M.J., 4th Edn., Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp. 1170-1172.

Worth A. J. (2007). Management of fractures of the long bones of eight cats using external skeletal fixation and a tied-in intra medullary pin with a resin-acrylic bar. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 55(4), 191–197.

Published

2025-01-10

How to Cite

A Dongre, N., Balappanavar, B. R., N, N. . ., , M., N M, R. . ., V, S. ., & V, A. . (2025). Comparison of Intramedullary Pin Tie-In Configuration and  Type Ia ESF With Double Connecting Bars for Tibial and  Humeral Fractures in Dogs. Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology, 21(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.21.1.01