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

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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