Get access

Cemented Total Knee Replacement in 24 Dogs: Surgical Technique, Clinical Results, and Complications

Authors

  • MATTHEW J. ALLEN VetMB, PhD,

    1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KENDALL A. LEONE BS,

    1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KIMBERLY LAMONTE BPS,

    1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KATY L. TOWNSEND BVSc,

    1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KENNETH A. MANN PhD

    1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Presented in part at the ACVS Veterinary Symposium, October 23–25, 2008, San Diego, CA. Financial support for this research study was provided by Styrker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ.

Address reprint requests to Matthew J. Allen, VetMB, PhD, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, 601 Vernon L. Tharp Street, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: allen.1243@osu.edu

Abstract

Objective— To characterize the performance of cemented total knee replacement (TKR) in dogs.

Study Design— Preclinical research study.

Animals— Skeletally mature, male Hounds (25–30 kg; n=24) with no preexisting joint pathology.

Methods— Dogs had unilateral cemented TKR and were evaluated at 6, 12, 26, or 52 weeks (6 dogs/time point) by radiography, bone density analysis, visual gait assessment, and direct measurement of thigh circumference and stifle joint range of motion as indicators of functional recovery. At study end, the stability of the cemented tibial component was determined by destructive mechanical testing.

Results— Joint stability was excellent in 16 dogs (67%) and good in 8 dogs. None of the tibial components had evidence of migration or periprosthetic osteolysis whereas 1 femoral component was loose at 52 weeks. There was an early and significant decrease in tibial bone density, likely because of disuse of the operated limb. Dogs returned to full activity by 12 weeks. The tibial cement–bone interface maintained its strength over 52 weeks.

Conclusions— Cement provides stable fixation of the tibial component in canine TKR.

Clinical Relevance— Cemented TKR yields adequate clinical function and stifle joint excursion in the dog. Clinical studies are needed to determine the long-term fate of cemented TKR implants, to assess the influence of implant design on implant fixation and wear, and to obtain objective functional data.

Ancillary