TY - JOUR

T1 - Reported accuracy of cranial closing wedge ostectomy variants for management of canine cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Miles, J. E.

AU - Nielsen, M. B.M.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Dr Thomas Eriksen for his critical input. Departmental funding was used. Supplementary data including protocol, meta-analysis data, and R code associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi: …. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Concerns have been raised about the predictability of achieving appropriate tibial plateau angles (TPA), the occurrence of axis shift and tibial length reduction following cranial closing wedge ostectomy (CCWO). The primary objective of this review was to quantify typical errors in achieving target TPA with CCWO, with secondary objectives of assessing axis shift and length reduction. Retrospective or prospective studies of CCWO used as the primary treatment, from any date and in English, were eligible for inclusion. Searches were performed in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Agricola, Scopus, Web of Science, and CAB abstracts. Risk of bias was assessed, and data were screened for outliers and influential cases. Extracted data from 11 included studies were tabulated and underwent meta-analysis using R. Mean errors in TPA after CCWO ranged from − 0.6–2.9°, indicating the possibility of both under- and over-correction depending on the selected technique. Errors were relatively consistent for technique subgroups. Mean axis shifts ranged from 3.4° to 5.2°, and length reduction ranged from 0.4% to 3.2% of initial length, based on 6/11 and 3/11 studies, respectively. Data had high heterogeneity, many studies had small populations, and reporting standards were inconsistent. Concerns about the predictability of postoperative TPA may be overstated. With the limited data available, limb shortening does not appear to be a clinically important consideration. Axis shift will occur to varying degrees and must be considered during CCWO planning, as it influences the postoperative TPA. Careful choice of CCWO technique may allow clinicians to reliably achieve predictable TPA values.

AB - Concerns have been raised about the predictability of achieving appropriate tibial plateau angles (TPA), the occurrence of axis shift and tibial length reduction following cranial closing wedge ostectomy (CCWO). The primary objective of this review was to quantify typical errors in achieving target TPA with CCWO, with secondary objectives of assessing axis shift and length reduction. Retrospective or prospective studies of CCWO used as the primary treatment, from any date and in English, were eligible for inclusion. Searches were performed in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Agricola, Scopus, Web of Science, and CAB abstracts. Risk of bias was assessed, and data were screened for outliers and influential cases. Extracted data from 11 included studies were tabulated and underwent meta-analysis using R. Mean errors in TPA after CCWO ranged from − 0.6–2.9°, indicating the possibility of both under- and over-correction depending on the selected technique. Errors were relatively consistent for technique subgroups. Mean axis shifts ranged from 3.4° to 5.2°, and length reduction ranged from 0.4% to 3.2% of initial length, based on 6/11 and 3/11 studies, respectively. Data had high heterogeneity, many studies had small populations, and reporting standards were inconsistent. Concerns about the predictability of postoperative TPA may be overstated. With the limited data available, limb shortening does not appear to be a clinically important consideration. Axis shift will occur to varying degrees and must be considered during CCWO planning, as it influences the postoperative TPA. Careful choice of CCWO technique may allow clinicians to reliably achieve predictable TPA values.

KW - Axis shift

KW - Cranial closing wedge

KW - Cranial cruciate ligament

KW - Dogs

KW - Tibial plateau angle

U2 - 10.1016/j.tvjl.2023.105989

DO - 10.1016/j.tvjl.2023.105989

M3 - Review

C2 - 37148995

AN - SCOPUS:85159071605

VL - 295

JO - The Veterinary Journal

JF - The Veterinary Journal

SN - 1090-0233

M1 - 105989

ER -