Dataset Information

A review of minimally invasive fracture stabilization in dogs and cats.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To summarize and discuss peer-reviewed studies on minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) of long bone, physeal, and articular fractures in dogs and cats.

Study design

Invited review.

Methods

A critique of literature was performed to assess MIO feasibility, outcomes, and complications through PubMed, Scopus, and CAB abstracts research databases (2000-2020).

Results

More than 40 MIO articles have been published in the last 15 years, but most studies had small numbers, lacked control groups, and used limited outcome measures. Studies generally showed that MIO was feasible in dogs and cats with low complication rates. The current evidence does not demonstrate superior bone healing or functional outcomes with MIO when compared to standard methods. Although treatment principles, case selection, and techniques varied depending on the anatomical location, there were no salient differences in complication rates among long bones, physeal, and articular fractures treated by MIO.

Conclusion

The current available evidence and the personal experience of the authors support MIO as a promising fracture management modality. MIO can yield excellent outcomes when applied in carefully selected cases, performed by surgeons experienced in the technique. We cannot, however, conclude that MIO is superior to open fracture stabilization based on the available evidence in veterinary literature. Randomized controlled studies are warranted to prospectively compare MIO with other osteosynthesis techniques and thereby validate its role in fracture management for dogs and cats.

SUBMITTER: Pozzi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.