Veterinary evidence · 2024
Comparing internal versus external fixation for diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chitty Jake, Aldridge Paul
Аннотация
PICO QUESTION: In skeletally immature dogs with simple non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures does internal fixation compared with external fixation result in less postoperative complications and improved fracture healing?
CATEGORY OF RESEARCH: Treatment.
NUMBER AND TYPE OF STUDY DESIGNS REVIEWED: There were no publications that answered the PICO question.
STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: None.
OUTCOMES REPORTED: Both external skeletal fixation and internal fixation are reported as techniques for diaphyseal tibial and fibular fracture management in companion animals, though no study has been reported to compare these techniques directly, or to report fracture healing and postoperative complications in skeletally immature dogs with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial fractures.
CONCLUSION: Given the absence of evidence answering the PICO, choice and recommendation on treatment for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs should be decided on personal experience and stabilisation methods available to the veterinarian such as external fixation or internal fixation. Both surgical techniques have been reported in skeletally mature and immature dogs with diaphyseal tibial fractures, but not specifically in skeletally immature patients with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures. They are both applicable methods of fixation for tibial fractures in companion animals, though there is lacking evidence for which has more favourable outcomes for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs as no studies have directly compared these stabilisation techniques.
CATEGORY OF RESEARCH: Treatment.
NUMBER AND TYPE OF STUDY DESIGNS REVIEWED: There were no publications that answered the PICO question.
STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: None.
OUTCOMES REPORTED: Both external skeletal fixation and internal fixation are reported as techniques for diaphyseal tibial and fibular fracture management in companion animals, though no study has been reported to compare these techniques directly, or to report fracture healing and postoperative complications in skeletally immature dogs with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial fractures.
CONCLUSION: Given the absence of evidence answering the PICO, choice and recommendation on treatment for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs should be decided on personal experience and stabilisation methods available to the veterinarian such as external fixation or internal fixation. Both surgical techniques have been reported in skeletally mature and immature dogs with diaphyseal tibial fractures, but not specifically in skeletally immature patients with non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures. They are both applicable methods of fixation for tibial fractures in companion animals, though there is lacking evidence for which has more favourable outcomes for non-displaced diaphyseal tibial and fibular fractures in skeletally immature dogs as no studies have directly compared these stabilisation techniques.