Two techniques for supplementing interlocking nail repair of fractures of the humerus, femur, and tibia: results in 12 dogs and cats.
OBJECTIVE
To describe 2 devices for improving stabilization of inadequately stabilized interlocking nail (ILN) repairs of the humerus, tibia, and femur in dogs and cats.


METHODS
Prospective study.


METHODS
Twelve client-owned dogs and cats.


METHODS
Two devices to further stabilize ILN repair of inadequately stabilized diaphyseal fractures were developed. Device 1 was an axial extension for the ILN that was connected to a conventional type I external skeletal fixator (ESF) with a short connecting bar. Device 2 had hybrid ILN bolt/ESF pins that were used to lock the ILN and serve as the pins for a type I ESF. Devices were used at the initial surgery when the stability of ILN repair was considered inadequate based on palpable fracture segment movement, insufficient medullary canal filling of the ILN at the fracture site, or when the ILN was used in a buttress mode. Outcome was obtained by recheck examinations, radiography, and telephone interview.


RESULTS
Device 1 was applicable to fractures of the humerus and femur, but was not used for fractures of the tibia because the ILN extension would have interfered with the stifle. No gross loosening of the ILN/ESF extension connection to the ILN occurred. Device 2 was easily placed and used in the humerus, femur, and tibia. Device 2 allowed removal of the ILN interlock to one or both main fracture segments non-invasively. Clinically, both devices added stability compared with ILN repair alone. Both devices facilitated controlled destabilization of the fracture repair as healing progressed. Complications of pin tract infection, and premature hybrid bolt/ESF pin loosening resulting in premature ESF removal each occurred in 1 patient. Four of 28 hybrid ILN/ESF pins were grossly loose at 4- or 6-week postoperative recheck examinations. Outcomes were excellent (9), good (1), fair (1), and poor (1).


CONCLUSIONS
Inadequately stabilized ILN repair of fractures can be stabilized by use of either device, both of which also permit controlled destabilization of the repair during healing. Device 2 can be used when non-invasive removal of the ILN interlock is desired during healing.


CONCLUSIONS
These 2 devices should be considered as alternative methods for stabilization of inadequately stabilized ILN repairs in dogs and cats, or when controlled destabilization of an ILN fracture repair is desired.
Basinger
R Randy
RR
South Carolina Surgical Referral Service, 124 Stonemark Lane, Columbia, SC 29210, USA. Louburps@aol.com
Suber
Jonathan T
JT
D000818:Animals; D001858:Bone Nails / Q000662:veterinary*; D002415:Cats / Q000293:injuries / Q000601:surgery; D004285:Dogs / Q000293:injuries / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D005264:Femoral Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery / Q000662:veterinary; D005594:Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery / Q000662:veterinary*; D006810:Humeral Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery / Q000662:veterinary; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011859:Radiography; D013978:Tibial Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery / Q000662:veterinary; D016896:Treatment Outcome