Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2024; 37(02): 107-114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776332
Clinical Communication

Use of a Modified Intramedullary Pinning Technique for Distal Femoral Physeal Salter–Harris Type I and II Fracture Management: A Retrospective Study of 31 Cats

Laura Bondonny
1   Service de Chirurgie, CHV Onlyvet, Saint Priest, France
,
Maxime Jacqmin
1   Service de Chirurgie, CHV Onlyvet, Saint Priest, France
,
François-Xavier Ferrand
1   Service de Chirurgie, CHV Onlyvet, Saint Priest, France
,
Mathieu Taroni
1   Service de Chirurgie, CHV Onlyvet, Saint Priest, France
,
Pablo Rivier
1   Service de Chirurgie, CHV Onlyvet, Saint Priest, France
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To report a modified intramedullary pinning technique, and associated outcomes, for distal femoral physeal Salter–Harris type I and II fracture management in cats.

Study Design Retrospective study including client-owned cats presented between November 2014 and February 2022 with distal femoral physeal fractures treated with an intramedullary pin and one antirotational pin inserted in the lateral femoral condyle. Collected data included signalment, fracture characteristics according to the Salter–Harris classification, surgical data (intramedullary and antirotational pin sizes), and outcome data (radiographic and functional outcomes and complications).

Results Thirty-one cats were included in this study. Bone healing was radiographically confirmed 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively in all cases. The majority of cats (30/31) were classified as full functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. The overall mid-term complication rate was 3% (1/31). Implant migration was not observed and implant removal was not needed in any case.

Conclusion The modified intramedullary pinning technique for distal femoral Salter–Harris I and II fracture management in cats was associated with an full functional outcome.

Keywords

fracture - fixation - femur - Salter–Harris - physeal fracture

Authors' Contribution

L.B. contributed to study design, acquisition of data, and data analysis and interpretation. M.J., F.-X.F., and M.T. contributed to acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. P.R. contributes to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data, and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised, and approved the submitted manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 13 October 2022

Accepted: 27 September 2023

Article published online:
31 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Grauer GF, Banks WJ, Ellison GW, Rouse GP. Incidence and mechanisms of distal femoral physeal fractures in the dog and cat. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc USA 1981
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rubinos C, Meeson RL. Traumatic physeal fractures in cats: a review of 36 cases (2010–2020). J Feline Med Surg 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 DeCamp CE, Johnston SA, Déjardin LM, Schaefer SL. Brinker, Piermattei, and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2016: 868
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Salter R, Harris WR. Injuries involving the epiphyseal plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1963; (45) 587-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Johnson JM, Johnson AL, Eurell JAC. Histological appearance of naturally occurring canine physeal fractures. Vet Surg 1994; 23 (02) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Voss K, Lieskovsky J. Trauma-induced growth abnormalities of the distal radius in three cats. J Feline Med Surg 2007; 9 (02) 117-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Guiot LP, Déjardin LM. Fracture of the femur. In: Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed.. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017: 1019-1071
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Smith RN. Fusion of ossification centres in the cat. J Small Anim Pract 1969; 10 (09) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Perry KL, Fordham A, Arthurs GI. Effect of neutering and breed on femoral and tibial physeal closure times in male and female domestic cats. J Feline Med Surg 2014; 16 (02) 149-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dahl WJ, Silva S, Vanderhave KL. Distal femoral physeal fixation: are smooth pins really safe?. J Pediatr Orthop 2014; 34 (02) 134-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stigen O. Supracondylar femoral fractures in 159 dogs and cats treated using a normograde intramedullary pinning technique. J Small Anim Pract 1999; 40 (11) 519-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Whitney WO, Schrader SC. Dynamic intramedullary crosspinning technique for repair of distal femoral fractures in dogs and cats: 71 cases (1981-1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987; 191 (09) 1133-1138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sukhiani HR, Holmberg DL. Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of pin fixation techniques for canine distal femoral physeal fractures. Vet Surg 1997; 26 (05) 398-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lorinson D, Millis DL, Bright RM. Determination of safe depth of pin penetration for repair of distal femoral physeal fractures in immature dogs: a comparison of normograde and retrograde pin placement. Vet Surg 1997; 26 (06) 467-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Manley P, Henry W, Wilson J. Diseases of the epiphyses. In: Canine Orthopedics. 2nd ed. Malvern: Lea & Febiger; 1990: 585-619
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Parker RB, Bloomberg MS. Modified intramedullary pin technique for repair of distal femoral physeal fractures in the dog and cat. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984; 184 (10) 1259-1265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Boekhout-Ta CL, Kim SE, Cross AR, Evans R, Pozzi A. Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-assisted percutaneous pinning of 42 physeal fractures in 37 dogs and 4 cats. Vet Surg 2017; 46 (01) 103-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hudson CC, Kim SE, Pozzi A. Percutaneous pinning for fracture repair in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2020; 50 (01) 101-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Voss K, Langley-Hobbs S, Montavon PM. Femur. In: Feline Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Disease. Edinburg: Saunders Elsevier; 2009: 455-474
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Roberts VJ, Meeson RL. Feline femoral fracture fixation: what are the options?. J Feline Med Surg 2022; 24 (05) 442-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Johnson KA. Piermattei's Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: W.B. Saunders; 2014: 367-458
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Cook JL, Evans R, Conzemius MG. et al. Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (08) 905-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Harasen G. Fractures involving the distal extremity of the femur. Part 1–The immature patient. Can Vet J 2001; 42 (12) 949-950
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vasseur PB, Paul HA, Crumley L. Evaluation of fixation devices for prevention of rotation in transverse fractures of the canine femoral shaft: an in vitro study. Am J Vet Res 1984; 45 (08) 1504-1507
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Braden TD, Eicker SW, Abdinoor D, Prieur WD. Characteristics of 1000 femur fractures in the dog and cat. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 08 (04) 203-209
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alcantara PJ, Stead AC. Fractures of the distal femur in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1975; 16 (10) 649-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Culvenor JA, Hulse DA, Patton CS. Closure after injury of the distal femoral growth plate in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1978; 19 (10) 549-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar