4.4 Article

Evaluation of the radiographic infrapatellar fat pad sign of the contralateral stifle joint as a risk factor for subsequent contralateral cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs with unilateral rupture: 96 cases (2006-2007)

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.244.3.328

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine prevalence of the contralateral radiographic infrapatellar fat pad sign and contralateral radiographic degenerative sign (degenerative changes) and evaluate both signs as risk factors for subsequent contralateral cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL) rupture in dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture. Design-Retrospective cohort study. Animals-96 dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture and 22 dogs with bilateral CrCL rupture. Procedures-Dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture were classified as having normal (n = 84) or abnormal (12) contralateral stifle joints on the basis of joint palpation. Associations between potential predictive variables and rates of subsequent contralateral CrCL rupture were evaluated. Results-Of the 84 dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture in which the contralateral stifle joint was palpably normal, 29 (34.5%) had a contralateral fat pad sign and 31 (36.9%) had a degenerative sign. All dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture in which the contralateral stifle joint was palpably abnormal had a contralateral fat pad sign and degenerative sign. The contralateral fat pad sign was the most important risk factor for subsequent rupture of the contralateral CrCL. For dogs with unilateral CrCL rupture and palpably normal contralateral stifle joint with and without a contralateral fat pad sign, median time to subsequent rupture was 421 and 1,688 days, respectively, and the 3-year probability of subsequent rupture was 85.3% and 24.9%, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Bilateral stifle joint radiography should be performed for all dogs with CrCL rupture. Bilateral stifle joint arthroscopy should be considered for dogs with a contralateral fat pad sign.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据