Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MİPO) in veterinary orthopedics

Year 2022, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 47 - 51, 31.08.2022

Çağıl Çokcoşkun Yılmaz , Cenk Yardımcı

https://doi.org/10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.1111320

Abstract

The current increase in the numbers of fracture treatment by plate osteosynthesis in veterinary medicine is leading to the production of specific plates for different types of fractures. Recent studies about fracture healing show that MIPO procedure is superior for faster union and healing by decreased contamination risk, faster return of function, lower complication rates and blood supply preservation. By now, indirect reduction technics are more valuable in preservation of the biological structure of bone than full anatomic reduction techniques. Day by day, MIPO becomes more popular in veterinary orthopedics. Basicly the method is applying a plate without opening the fractured area to make a bridging between the proximal and distal metaphysis/diaphysis of the fragments. The success of the procedure relies on the type of the fracture and the fracture area. The procedure can be applied especially diaphyseal segmental fractures with success but to be avoided in articular fractures. The procedure has been being used usually in the diaphyseal tibial and radial fractures of the cats and dogs. But nowadays it has started to be used in femoral and humeral fractures as well. The disadvantages of the procedure is the difficulty of the application and the need of the intraoperative radiography or fluoroscopy for the correct positioning of the fractures.

Keywords

mio, mipo, fractures, plate osteosynthesis

References

• Aron D.N., Palmer R. H., & Johnson A. L. (1995) Biologic Strategies and a balanced concept for repair highly comminuted long bone fractures. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian. 17, 35-47.
• Baroncelli A. B., Perione, B., Winter, M. D., Reese, D. J., & Pozzi, A. (2012) Retrospective comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open plating for tibial fractures in dogs. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 25, 410-417.
• Bedizci M. Ö., & Kurum, B. (2020). Minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) applications in long bone fractures of dogs and cats. International Journal of Veterinary and Animal Research 3(3), 58-63.
• Chao P., Lewis D. D. , Kowaleski M.P., & Pozzi, A. (2012) Biomechanical concepts applicable to minimally invasive fracture repair in small animal. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 42, 853-872.
• Eugster S., Schawalder P., Gaschen F., & Boerlin P. (2004) A prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Veterinary Surgery, 33, 542-550.
• Guiot, L. P., Dejardin, L. M. (2011) Prospective evaluation of minimally invasive Plate Osteosynthesis in 36 nonarticular tibial fractures in dogs and cats. Veterinary Surgery, 40, 171-182.
• Hudson C. C., Lewis D. D. , Pozzi A. (2020) Minimal İnvasive Plate Osteosynthesis /Radius and Ulna. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 50-51, 135-153.
• Hudson C. C., Pozzi A., & Lewis D. D. (2009) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: Applications and techniques in dogs and cats. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 3, 22. 175-182.
• Istim C., & Arıcan M. (2020) Köpeklerin uzun ekstremite kırıklarında minimal invaziv plak osteosentez (MIPO) yönteminin klinik ve radyografik olarak değerlendirilmesi. Eurasian Journal of Veterinary Sciences 36(3), 172-179.
• Johnson A. L. (2003) Current concepts in fracture reduction. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology,16,59-66.
• Johnson A. L., Smith C. W., & Schaeffer D. J. (1998) Fragment recontration and bone plate fixation versus bringing plate fixation for treating highly comminuted femoral fractures : 35 cases. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association . 213,1157-1161.
• Maritato K. C., & Rovesti G. L. (2020) Minimal invasive Osyeosynthesis Techniques for Humerus Fractures. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 50-51, 123-134.
• Peirone B., Rovesti G. L., Baroncelli A. B., & Piras L.A. (2020) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis fracture reduction techniques in small animals. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 50(1), 23-47.
• Robinson, W. P., Knowles, T. G., Barthelemy, N. P., & Parson, K. J. (2020) Perceptions of minimally invasive osteosynthesis: A 2018 survey of orthopedic surgeons. Veterinary Surgery, 49, O163-O170.
• Schmierer P.A., Pozzi A. (2017) Guidelines for surgical approaches for minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis in cats. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 30, 272-278.
• Schmokel H. G., Stein, S., Radke, H., Hurter, K., & Schawalder, P. (2007) Treatment of tibial fractures with plates using minimally invasive percuteneous osteosynthesis in dogs and cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 48, 157-160.
• Wagner, M., & Frigg, R. (2006) AO Manual of fracture management, internal fixators: concepts and cases using LCP and LISS. Clavadelerstrasse: AO Publishing, 1-57.
• Witsberger T. H., Hulse D. A., Kerwin S. C., & Saunders W. B. (2010) Minimally invasive application of a radial plate following placement of an ulnar rod in treating antebrachial fractures. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 6/2010, 23, 459-467.