A technique for repair of femoral capital epiphyseal fractures in the dog

Hind limb lameness in the young patient

Hind limb lameness is seen frequently in young dogs and may result from congenital abnormalities, traumatic injuries, or developmental diseases. An understanding of the patient's history, a good physical and radiographic evaluation, and sound knowledge of the common diseases affecting immature dogs permit early diagnosis and successful treatment in most cases.

Determination of proximal femoral epiphyseal depth for repair of physeal fractures in immature dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the depth that implants may be safely placed for repair of proximal femoral physeal fractures.

STUDY DESIGN

Relationships were determined between the depth of the proximal femoral epiphysis (PFE) and the contralateral PFE, and the PFE and pubic bone width.

ANIMALS OR SAMPLE POPULATION

20 immature dog cadavers.

METHODS

Actual PFE depths were determined at the center of the physeal surface and at four other eccentric points. The contralateral intact PFE depth and the width of the cranial aspect of the public bone were measured from radiographs.

RESULTS

Mean ratios of actual central PFE depth to radiographically measured (1) contralateral PFE depth and (2) pubic bone width were 1.04:1, and 1.09:1, and ratios of actual eccentric PFE depths were 0.89:1 and 0.93:1. Body weight was not useful in estimating depth of the PFE.

CONCLUSIONS

For the central epiphysis, pins may safely be placed a distance equal to 75% to 80% of the contralateral intact PFE depth or pubic bone width, measured from a ventrodorsal radiograph, with minimal risk of penetration through the articular surface. Pins placed eccentrically may be safely driven a depth equal to 65% of the radiographically measured contralateral intact PFE depth or pubic bone width.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Estimating the safe depth of implant placement into the PFE avoids penetration of the articular surface.