Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses
To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. Experimental study. Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary surgery 2009-12, Vol.38 (8), p.990-997 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 997 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 990 |
container_title | Veterinary surgery |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | LANG, HAYLEY M PANIZZI, LUCA ALLEN, ANDREW L WOODBURY, MURRAY R BARBER, SPENCER M |
description | To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. Experimental study. Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00594.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734200849</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>734200849</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-d32e71cf3e087625a681f4aa016b407926bda7fd5df82f014e62bb17558c399d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc9v0zAcxS0EYt3gXwCLC6cE_4zjC9KUQQdMgLSWcbOcxF5dkrjYqdb99zjL6IETPthfyZ_39PwMAMQox2m92-aYU5JJjn7mBCGZI8Qlyw9PwOJ48RQsEC5wRpmUJ-A0xi1KJGP0OThJGixKXi7ATeX7nQ4u-gF6C1ebYAy8CK7r3HALV6bZDO733kRofYCVDjvfm1E3adAd_OzdMMLzMG6Cb010EboBXvoQTXwBnlndRfPy8TwD648fVtVldvVt-ak6v8oaxkuWtZQYgRtLDSpFQbguSmyZ1il5zZCQpKhbLWzLW1sSizAzBalrLDgvGyplS8_A29l3F_yUc1S9i43pOj0Yv49KUJYeWzKZyDf_kFu_D0MKpwjmBZ4KSVA5Q03wMQZj1S64Xod7hZGaqldbNTWspobVVL16qF4dkvTVo_--7k17FP7tOgHvZ-DOdeb-v43Vj-v1w5gMstnAxdEcjgY6_FKFoIKrm69LVXyXS0m-SFUl_vXMW-2Vvk2frNbXBGGaAqWtQPQP6z6qJA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215611785</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>LANG, HAYLEY M ; PANIZZI, LUCA ; ALLEN, ANDREW L ; WOODBURY, MURRAY R ; BARBER, SPENCER M</creator><creatorcontrib>LANG, HAYLEY M ; PANIZZI, LUCA ; ALLEN, ANDREW L ; WOODBURY, MURRAY R ; BARBER, SPENCER M</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. Experimental study. Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-3499</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-950X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00594.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20017858</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; arthrodesis ; Arthrodesis - methods ; Arthrodesis - veterinary ; Arthroplasty, Subchondral - methods ; Arthroplasty, Subchondral - veterinary ; carpometacarpal joint ; carpus ; drilling ; Forelimb - surgery ; forelimbs ; horse diseases ; Horses ; Horses - surgery ; joint diseases ; Joint Diseases - surgery ; Joint Diseases - veterinary ; Joints ; joints (animal) ; Joints - surgery ; metacarpus ; methodology ; radiography ; Veterinary medicine ; Veterinary services</subject><ispartof>Veterinary surgery, 2009-12, Vol.38 (8), p.990-997</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2009 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons</rights><rights>2009 American College of Veterinary Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-d32e71cf3e087625a681f4aa016b407926bda7fd5df82f014e62bb17558c399d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-d32e71cf3e087625a681f4aa016b407926bda7fd5df82f014e62bb17558c399d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2009.00594.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2009.00594.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20017858$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>LANG, HAYLEY M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PANIZZI, LUCA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ALLEN, ANDREW L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WOODBURY, MURRAY R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BARBER, SPENCER M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses</title><title>Veterinary surgery</title><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><description>To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. Experimental study. Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>arthrodesis</subject><subject>Arthrodesis - methods</subject><subject>Arthrodesis - veterinary</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Subchondral - methods</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Subchondral - veterinary</subject><subject>carpometacarpal joint</subject><subject>carpus</subject><subject>drilling</subject><subject>Forelimb - surgery</subject><subject>forelimbs</subject><subject>horse diseases</subject><subject>Horses</subject><subject>Horses - surgery</subject><subject>joint diseases</subject><subject>Joint Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Joint Diseases - veterinary</subject><subject>Joints</subject><subject>joints (animal)</subject><subject>Joints - surgery</subject><subject>metacarpus</subject><subject>methodology</subject><subject>radiography</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><subject>Veterinary services</subject><issn>0161-3499</issn><issn>1532-950X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc9v0zAcxS0EYt3gXwCLC6cE_4zjC9KUQQdMgLSWcbOcxF5dkrjYqdb99zjL6IETPthfyZ_39PwMAMQox2m92-aYU5JJjn7mBCGZI8Qlyw9PwOJ48RQsEC5wRpmUJ-A0xi1KJGP0OThJGixKXi7ATeX7nQ4u-gF6C1ebYAy8CK7r3HALV6bZDO733kRofYCVDjvfm1E3adAd_OzdMMLzMG6Cb010EboBXvoQTXwBnlndRfPy8TwD648fVtVldvVt-ak6v8oaxkuWtZQYgRtLDSpFQbguSmyZ1il5zZCQpKhbLWzLW1sSizAzBalrLDgvGyplS8_A29l3F_yUc1S9i43pOj0Yv49KUJYeWzKZyDf_kFu_D0MKpwjmBZ4KSVA5Q03wMQZj1S64Xod7hZGaqldbNTWspobVVL16qF4dkvTVo_--7k17FP7tOgHvZ-DOdeb-v43Vj-v1w5gMstnAxdEcjgY6_FKFoIKrm69LVXyXS0m-SFUl_vXMW-2Vvk2frNbXBGGaAqWtQPQP6z6qJA</recordid><startdate>200912</startdate><enddate>200912</enddate><creator>LANG, HAYLEY M</creator><creator>PANIZZI, LUCA</creator><creator>ALLEN, ANDREW L</creator><creator>WOODBURY, MURRAY R</creator><creator>BARBER, SPENCER M</creator><general>Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200912</creationdate><title>Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses</title><author>LANG, HAYLEY M ; PANIZZI, LUCA ; ALLEN, ANDREW L ; WOODBURY, MURRAY R ; BARBER, SPENCER M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-d32e71cf3e087625a681f4aa016b407926bda7fd5df82f014e62bb17558c399d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>arthrodesis</topic><topic>Arthrodesis - methods</topic><topic>Arthrodesis - veterinary</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Subchondral - methods</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Subchondral - veterinary</topic><topic>carpometacarpal joint</topic><topic>carpus</topic><topic>drilling</topic><topic>Forelimb - surgery</topic><topic>forelimbs</topic><topic>horse diseases</topic><topic>Horses</topic><topic>Horses - surgery</topic><topic>joint diseases</topic><topic>Joint Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Joint Diseases - veterinary</topic><topic>Joints</topic><topic>joints (animal)</topic><topic>Joints - surgery</topic><topic>metacarpus</topic><topic>methodology</topic><topic>radiography</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><topic>Veterinary services</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>LANG, HAYLEY M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PANIZZI, LUCA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ALLEN, ANDREW L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WOODBURY, MURRAY R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BARBER, SPENCER M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>LANG, HAYLEY M</au><au>PANIZZI, LUCA</au><au>ALLEN, ANDREW L</au><au>WOODBURY, MURRAY R</au><au>BARBER, SPENCER M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><date>2009-12</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>990</spage><epage>997</epage><pages>990-997</pages><issn>0161-3499</issn><eissn>1532-950X</eissn><abstract>To evaluate 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. Experimental study. Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Malden, USA : Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>20017858</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00594.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0161-3499 |
ispartof | Veterinary surgery, 2009-12, Vol.38 (8), p.990-997 |
issn | 0161-3499 1532-950X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734200849 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Animals arthrodesis Arthrodesis - methods Arthrodesis - veterinary Arthroplasty, Subchondral - methods Arthroplasty, Subchondral - veterinary carpometacarpal joint carpus drilling Forelimb - surgery forelimbs horse diseases Horses Horses - surgery joint diseases Joint Diseases - surgery Joint Diseases - veterinary Joints joints (animal) Joints - surgery metacarpus methodology radiography Veterinary medicine Veterinary services |
title | Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T02%3A39%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Three%20Drilling%20Techniques%20for%20Carpometacarpal%20Joint%20Arthrodesis%20in%20Horses&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20surgery&rft.au=LANG,%20HAYLEY%20M&rft.date=2009-12&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=990&rft.epage=997&rft.pages=990-997&rft.issn=0161-3499&rft.eissn=1532-950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00594.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E734200849%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215611785&rft_id=info:pmid/20017858&rfr_iscdi=true |