Tank, P. H.Javia, Chiragkumar Babulal2018-06-112018-06-112012http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810050822A clinical study on Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus technique for immobilization of tibial fractures in dogs was carried out with multiple objectives of knowing the epidemiological status of various orthopaedic affections, standardizing the application of 'Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus technique' for external immobilization of tibial fractures on cadaver models and lastly, applying and comparing the Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus technique with inframeduUary pinning for immobilization of tibial fractures in dogs. Last three years' retrospective information was retrieved by scrutinizing the data bank of the College Hospital. During that period, a total of 9,630 canine cases were registered out of which 550 (5.71%) cases were having orthopaedic maladies. Amongst those, the cases of fractures were 391 that accounted for nearly 71.09% cases of the reported orthopaedic maladies. Majority of the fractures involved femur 131 (33.50%) followed by radio-ulna 98 (25.06%), tibia-fibula 90 (23.01%) and humems 47 (12.02%). Cadaveric tibiae were used for standardization of the Bilateral External Fixator- Type II Apparatus technique. The diaphyses of tibiae were sawed in a manner to mimic different fractures and these fractures were immobilized using Bilateral External Fixator- Type II Apparatus technique to get hands on training. To evaluate the feasibility of the Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus technique in the treatment of tibial diaphyseal fracture in dogs, a study was carried out in 12 clinical cases of tibial fractures. The cases were randomly divided into two groups based upon the fracture stabilization technique used, viz.. Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus technique (Group I, n=6) and intramedullary pirming (Group II, n=6). Serosanguinous type exudation at pin tract site was seen in group I whereas mild exudation was observed in few cases of group II. Partial weight bearing was seen as early as 2nd postoperative day in group I as against 7th postoperative day in group II. Complete weight bearing was observed from the 8th postoperative day in majority cases of group I as compared to 24th postoperative day in group II. The earlier restoration of the functional usage of the limb could be attributed to the closed reduction, no external infection and axial stability of the Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus except in one case. In majority cases of group I joint mobility was earlier, seen from the 2nd post operative day whereas limited joint mobility was seen in the first week which gradually improved in all the cases of group II. Radiological examination was done at weekly intervals. Most of the dogs belonging to both the groups showed proper reduction and good alignment of the bone fragment immediately after the operation. Callus formation was earlier i.e. within 50 days in majority cases of group I as against 54 days in all cases of group II. One case of group I did not show any bridging between the fractured fragments. Minimum or no periosteal reaction was seen around fracture site in group I whereas considerable periosteal reaction was seen around the fracture site in group II. Mild periosteal reaction was seen around the pin insertion sites in group I by 4th postoperative week. Postoperative complications observed in group I were mild pin tract infection which subsided with proper antibiotic dressing. In group I, majority of cases healed completely except two cases in which anatomical reduction was poor. In group II, occasional limping was observed inspite of complete weight bearing. This might have been due to irritation to soft tissues around the entry site of Steinmann pin while flexing and extending the stifle joint. Infection was seen in one case of group II at the incision site and mild rotation of the distal fragments were seen in few cases. Removal of the Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus or pin was carried out at 7-8 weeks in group I and 8-9 weeks in group II. This was done when clinical healing was observed in the form of fiinctional limb use and endosteal and/or periosteal bridging was evident on radiographs. The Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus provided better anatomical reduction, axial stability of the fractured fragments, greater joint mobility and functional weight bearing. This technique also prevented muscle atrophy and rotational instability unlike intramedullary pinning. Hence Bilateral External Fixator-Type II Apparatus is better suited for treating tibial fractures than intramedullary pinning.enVETERINARY SURGERY AND RADIOLOGYA STUDYThesis