4.2 Article

A surgical tendonitis model in horses: Techinque, clinical, ultrasonographic and histological characterisation

出版社

SCHATTAUER GMBH-VERLAG MEDIZIN NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-09-10-0106

关键词

Surgical model; tendonitis; horse; superficial digital flexor tendon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Tendon injuries are common in all athletic activities in both humans and horses. Research of treatment modalities for this disease has typically been performed on a model of collagenase-induced tendonitis. This model has several disadvantages. Our hypothesis was that a reproducible core lesion could be created surgically in superficial digital flexor tendons (SDFT), which could then be evaluated consistently using ultrasonography. Materials and methods: Four horses free of forelimb lameness were used in this study. Each horse underwent general anaesthesia and a synovial resector was used to create a core lesion in the SDFT of each forelimb. Sonographic examination was conducted weekly using 2 cm intervals between a section 7 and 25 cm distal to the accessory carpal bone. At two, four, eight, and 12 weeks after injury, a horse was euthanatized. Histopathological evaluation of the SDFT was performed at the same levels as the sonographic examination. Results: Only mild clinical signs of tendonitis were observed. Ultrasonographic core lesions were 10-16 cm long and had a mean maximum cross-sectional area (CSA) of 18.25 +/- 5.91% occurring at 17-23 cm distal to the accessory carpal bone, and a mean volume of 1.86 +/- 0.26 cm(3). Mean duration taken to achieve maximum lesion CSA and lesion volume was 35 +/- 7 days. Histologically, the lesions were characterised by mild inflammation followed by fibroplasia. Conclusion: The reported surgical technique resulted in core lesions that were consistent in size and location, were readily evaluated with ultrasonography, and showed similarities with the ultrasonographic and histological progression of naturally occurring tendonitis lesions.

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

4.2
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