Limb lengthening in three dogs using distraction rates without a latency period

Abstract

From the results achieved in these three cases it can be concluded that a latency period prior to distraction osteogenesis may not be necessary. Also, distraction rates up to 3 mm per day can be used to shorten the time needed to achieve lengthening; however further studies are needed to investigate the high level of complications.

Use of hinged circular fixator constructs for the correction of crural deformities in three dogs

“…We used a higher distraction rate in dog 1 because it required substantial lengthening of the crus 1,4,5,20,21 . Although delays of 3–5 days between surgery and initiation of distraction have been recommended, 2–5 the need for any latency period in young dogs has been questioned 21–23 . We initiated distraction the day following surgery in dogs 1 and 2, but waited 3 days before initiating distraction in dog 3 because in that case it had been difficult to elevate and preserve the periosteum at the osteotomy site during surgery.…”

Use of an interlocking nail-hybrid fixator construct for distal femoral deformity correction in three dogs

“…The femur cannot be lengthened with a traditional circular fixator construct as complete rings cannot be placed to secure the proximal femoral segment, thus precluding the use of wires as fixation elements in this location (12). McCartney reported using a dynamic linear fixator with an intrameduallary pin to lengthen the femur in a one-year-old Dobermann Pinscher that had sustained a fracture of the distal femoral physis before reaching skeletal maturity (9). The femur was lengthened 45 mm, but there was bowing of the femur and the fixator connecting rod as well as pin tract complications which necessitated a second surgery.…”

“…The clinical application of distraction osteogenesis in human patients is credited to Ilizarov who pioneered the development of circular external skeletal fixation (3,4). Circular fixators, and the phenomenon of distraction osteogenesis, have been used in dogs to correct angular limb deformities, resolve limb length discrepancies, and to perform bone transport (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Use of traditional circular fixator constructs proximal to the elbow and stifle is difficult due to anatomical constraints and therefore most reports describing the application of Ilizarov's methods in dogs involve abnormalities affecting the antebrachium and crus (6,8,(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16).…”

“…Use of traditional circular fixator constructs proximal to the elbow and stifle is difficult due to anatomical constraints and therefore most reports describing the application of Ilizarov's methods in dogs involve abnormalities affecting the antebrachium and crus (6,8,(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). Only a few reports have described the clinical use of distraction osteogenesis involving other limb segments in dogs (5,7,9).…”

“…Our difficulty in elevating and preserving the periosteum as well as the sclerotic appearance of the incised medullary bone influenced our decision to use relatively long latency periods in these dogs. Recently the need to utilize any latency period in young dogs has been questioned (9). We can not ascertain if waiting until the fifth (cases 1 and 3) and seventh (case 2) day to initiate distraction was beneficial.…”