Retrospective Analysis of Canine Miniature Total Hip Prostheses
Objective To determine the practicality and clinical outcome of miniature total hip replacement (THR) in dogs. Study Design Retrospective study. Sample Population Seventeen client-owned dogs that had miniature THR. Methods Patient data surveyed included signalment, body weight, diagnosis, implant size, surgical technique, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Radiographic evaluation included angle of lateral opening of the acetabular component, implant positioning, cement mantle quality, and femoral displacement measurement and ratio. Client questionnaire and orthopedic examination were used to obtain long-term follow-up information. Results Miniature THR was performed to address hip dysplasia and secondary osteoarthritis. In 1 dog, a staged bilateral procedure was performed. Mean body weight was 19 kg (range, 12 to 25 kg). Penetration or fissure of the femoral cortex was the most common intraoperative complication and occurred in 3 dogs. In 3 dogs, there was excessive coxofemoral laxity after reduction of the prosthesis. This instability was addressed specifically in 2 dogs by capsulorrhaphy or capsular prosthesis. Postoperative convalescent complications (craniodorsal luxation, 2 dogs; acetabular cup displacement, 1 dog) were related to surgical errors. Aseptic loosening of the femoral implant was diagnosed in 1 dog at 18 months. Mean follow-up time was 17 months (range, 4 to 42 months). Fifteen of 18 (83%) miniature THRs had good or excellent outcomes. Conclusions Miniature THR should be considered a satisfactory alternative to femoral head and neck ostectomy in medium-size dogs affected by hip dysplasia and secondary osteoarthritis. The population of medium-size dogs that might derive more benefit from THR than FHO has yet to be defined. Clinical Relevance Miniature THR is a viable treatment option in medium-size dogs with hip dysplasia. © Copyright 2003 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons
Document Type: Research Article
From the Department of Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, VA; the Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA; and the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Publication date: May 1, 2003
Open access content
Free trial content