4.2 Article

Investigation of Variables Associated with Surgical Site Infection following the Management of Canine Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture with a Lateral Fabellotibial Suture

Journal

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715605

Keywords

surgical site infection; lateral fabellotibial suture; propofol; bodyweight; cranial cruciate ligament; dog

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This study investigated variables associated with surgical site infection (SSI) in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture managed with stifle joint examination and lateral fabellotibial suture stabilization. Study Design A retrospective study of dogs that had stifle arthroscopy, stifle arthrotomy, or a combination of both, followed by lateral fabellotibial suture stabilization for cranial cruciate ligament rupture. All cases had a minimum follow-up of 90 days. Lameness grades were recorded preoperatively, and at 6-week and final follow-up. Results One hundred fifty procedures in 130 dogs met the inclusion criteria. Overall, SSI rate was 17.3% and removal of the lateral fabellotibial suture was performed in 53% of SSI. Multivariable analysis showed significant association between SSI and bodyweight ( p =0.013), and induction using propofol ( p =0.029). Multilevel ordinal logistic regression analysis showed a greater proportion of dogs had a higher lameness grade at 6-week ( p =0.021) and final follow-up ( p =0.002) assessments in the infected compared with non-infected dogs. Conclusion Our study demonstrated a higher SSI incidence than previously reported in dogs undergoing a lateral fabellotibial suture for cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Bodyweight and induction with propofol were identified as significant risk factors for postoperative SSI. Owners could be advised of an increased SSI risk in larger dogs and consideration should be given to selection of induction agent. Dogs that develop an SSI have a worse lameness grade at 6-week and final follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available