University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna - Research portal

Diagrammed Link to Homepage University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna

Selected Publication:

Type of publication: Doctoral Thesis
Type of document:

Year: 2020

Authors: Lechner, Bettina

Title: Vergleich einer neuen extrakapsulären Versorgungstechnik mit einem lateralen Fadenzügel zur Versogung einer cranialen Kreuzbandruptur bei der Katze unter Verwendeung einer Katzebeinpresse.

Other title: Comparison of a novel extra-capsular suture technique to a standard fabello-tibial suture for cranial cruciate repair using a custom-made limb press model in the cat

Source: Dissertation, Vet. Med. Univ. Wien, pp. 28.

Advisor(s):

Bockstahler Barbara

Vetmed Research Units:
University Clinic for Small Animals, Clinical Unit of Small Animal Surgery


Abstract:
Cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR) is becoming a more widely recognized disease in cats (Harasen 2005, McLaughlin 2002, Umphlet 1993). There are some validated surgical techniques for fixation of the CCLR in feline patients (Harasen 2005, Mindner et al. 2016, Perry and Fitzpatrick 2010, Sousa et al. 2015) but the comparison of different techniques in biomechanical studies is needed to enhance our understanding of feline orthopaedics (Kneifel et al. 2017, Sousa et al. 2015).In this study 20 feline cadaveric hindlimbs were inserted in a limb press at predefined joint angles and then loads of 10 % and 30 % bodyweight (BW) were applied. To evaluate two surgical techniques (Fabello-tibial suture and MiniTightrope®), mediolateral radiographs were taken of intact, transected and fixed CCLs. 3D coordinates were also recorded, using a microscribe digitizer on intact, transected and fixed CCLs. Different distances and angles from radiographs or microscribe coordinates were analyzed. Radiographic distances from the femoral condyle to the cranial edge of the tibia were higher in CCL-deficient stifles than in intact stifles at 10 % and 30 % BW loads. All fabello-tibial sutures and MiniTightrope® fixations neutralized excessive cranial tibial thrust. Significant differences in the distance D2 (distance between the patella and tibial tuberosity) were observed between CCL deficient limbs and MiniTightrope®-fixed limbs at 10 % BW load (p < 0.04). Significant differences in the distance D3 (distance between tibial tuberosity and lateral collateral ligament of the femur) were observed between intact and transected CCL on the left hindlimbs at 10 % BW load (p < 0.003) and on both hindlimbs at 30 % BW load (p < 0.002). Furthermore, we observed significant differences between the CCL-deficient left stifles and the MiniTightrope®-treated stifles at 10 % BW load (p < 0.003). We also observed significant differences between CCL-deficient stifles and fabello-tibial suture treated stifles at 30 % BW load (p < 0.004). W1 (cranio-caudal angle) and W2 (mediolateral angle) showed significant differences between intact and transected CCL and between transected and surgically treated hindlimbs at 30 % BW load (p < 0.004). In conclusion fixation of cranial cruciate deficient stifles with either a lateral fabello-tibial suture or a MiniTightrope® tightened with 20 N load, produces good biomechanical stability, as shown by the radiographic assessments. Concerning mediolateral movements, no significant differences between the two techniques could be found with these measurement techniques.


© University of Veterinary Medicine ViennaHelp and DownloadsAccessibility statement