검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords

Article

J Vet Clin 2022; 39(3): 93-99

https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2022.39.3.93

Published online June 30, 2022

Radiographic Comparison of Cranial Tibial Wedge Osteotomy versus Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy: A Cadaveric Study

Jiyoon Lee , Dongwook Kim , Hyejong Oh , Sungin Lee , Seok Hwa Choi , Gonhyung Kim

Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea

Correspondence to:*ghkim@cbu.ac.kr

Jiyoon Lee and Dongwook Kim contributed equally to this work.

Received: March 17, 2022; Revised: May 16, 2022; Accepted: May 16, 2022

Copyright © The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics.

The present study was performed to compare cranial tibial wedge osteotomy (CTWO) and tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) through radiographic evaluation. The experiment was conducted with five cadaver dogs [mean (± SD) weight, 32.9 ± 4.1 kg; mean (± SD) age, 6 ± 2 years; three males and two females] euthanized for reasons unrelated to this study. The cadaver dogs consisted of German Shepherd (n = 3), Belgian Malinois (n = 1), and mixed breed (n = 1). CTWO and TPLO were carried out by the standard surgical method. Radiographic evaluation was performed by comparing several factors, including the flexion and extension angles, the anatomical mechanical axis angle (AMA-angle), tibial length, patellar height measurement using the Labelle-Laurin method, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), mechanical medial distal tibial angle (mMDTA), and frontal plane alignment (FPA). Both the CTWO and the TPLO groups showed significantly increased flexion angles after surgery. Only the CTWO group had significantly increased extension angle. Although both groups showed significant decreases in the AMA-angle, the mechanical axis moved cranially against the anatomical axis only in the CTWO group. The patellar height was significantly lowered in the CTWO group. No significant differences were found in mMPTA, mMDTA, or FPA. In conclusion, radiographic comparison revealed more changes in CTWO group than in TPLO group.

Keywords: cranial tibial wedge osteotomy, tibial plateau leveling osteotomy, cranial cruciate ligament rupture, dog.

The stifle joint is a complex structure composed of the femorotibial (FT), femoropatellar (FP), and tibiofibular joints. The role of the FT joint is to support weight and the FP joint contributes to the extensor mechanism of the stifle joint (20,34). There are at least 15 ligaments in the stifle joint. The cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL), one of the most important stifle ligaments, is the main stabilizer during walking. The functions of the CrCL are to resist cranial tibial thrust, to limit excessive internal rotation of the tibia, and to prevent hyperextension of the stifle joint (5). Cruciate ligament disease is a common cause of pelvic limb lameness in dogs (8,32). Partial or complete rupture of the CrCL increases instability of the stifle joint, causes secondary osteoarthritis, meniscal injury, synovitis, and lameness, and alters the kinematics of the stifle joint (10,18). Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy (CTWO) and tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) are both corrective osteotomies used to treat cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR). The aim of both surgeries is to neutralize cranial tibial thrust, eliminate displacement of the tibia cranially in the stance phase, restore the stifle joint kinetics, and delay osteoarthritis (2,36). Theoretically, cranial tibial thrust depends on the tibial plateau angle (TPA) and the compressive force during walking (23). CTWO, the first corrective osteotomy designed by Slocum and Devine in 1984, achieves stabilization through changing the dynamics of the tibia by wedge osteotomy (35). By decreasing the TPA, the tibia does not displace cranially when weight-bearing (2). TPLO was developed by Slocum and has the same biomechanical principles as CTWO in terms of reducing the TPA (38). However, unlike CTWO, TPLO reduces the TPA through biradial osteotomy of the tibia. The selection of an appropriate surgical method is made based on the patient’s size and activity (13). After treating the CCLR by CTWO or TPLO, similar clinical outcomes were obtained (4,10) and no significant difference was identified in the degree of osteoarthritis prevention in previous studies (28). However, recently, TPLO has replaced CTWO as a common way to treat CCLR (38). When compared to CTWO, TPLO had the advantage of restoring limb function more similarly to a normal limb with lower complication rates (2,10,24). In addition, dogs that underwent CTWO revealed hyperextended gait patterns during the swing phase (27). Thus, for better understanding of those methods to apply them appropriately to the dogs with CCLR, the purpose of this study was to compare CTWO and TPLO through radiographic evaluation.

Experimental design

Five cadaver dogs euthanized for reasons unrelated to this study were used after they were donated by the owner. The dogs consisted of German Shepherd (n = 3), Belgian Malinois (n = 1), and mixed breed (n = 1), ranging in weight from 26.5 to 37.0 kg (mean weight [± SD], 32.9 ± 4.1 kg). There were three males and two females and their ages ranged from three to eight years (mean age [± SD], 6 ± 2 years). The right and left limb were assigned to the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively. The CrCL was transected by a minimally invasive approach using a scalpel blade before surgery. CTWO and TPLO were performed by the standard surgical methods. The CTWO on the right limb was performed with a 6° target TPA. After indicating the line for wedge osteotomy, an oscillating saw was used to cut the bone and the resected wedge was removed. A 3.5 mm dynamic compression plate was used to reduce the gap after osteotomy. The TPLO on the left limb was done to achieve 5° of the target TPA. Before the osteotomy, a jig was placed to stabilize the osteotomy. Then, biradial osteotomy was performed using a 2.4 mm TPLO saw blade, and a 3.5 mm locking TPLO plate was used for fracture reduction. A tibial compression test was performed after each operation. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were taken and analyzed using a digital image measurement program (eFilm Workstation 4.1, Merge Healthcare, Hartland, WI). The flexion and the extension of the stifle joint were determined by measuring the angle between lines parallel to the caudal cortical bone of the diaphysis at the femur and tibia (11,26). The TPA was evaluated by measuring the angle between the line connecting the center of the talus and the center of the intercondylar eminence of the tibia and the slope of the tibial plateau (Fig. 1A) (31). The anatomical mechanical axis angle (AMA-angle) was evaluated by measuring the angle between the anatomical axis and the mechanical axis of the tibia. The anatomical axis was defined as the line connecting the center of one-half and three-fourths of the tibial shaft. The mechanical axis was defined as the line extending from the center of the talus to the center of the intercondylar eminence of the tibia (Fig. 1B) (15). Changes in the AMA-angle generally reflect caudal angulation and transposition of the functional weight-bearing axis of the tibia against the anatomical axis. The tibial length was measured as the length from the middle of the distal ridge of the tibia to the center of the intercondylar tubercle (Fig. 1C) (38). Lateral radiographs of the stifle joint flexed to 90° were used to measure the patellar height according to the Labelle-Laurin method. The patellar height was evaluated by comparing the proximal pole of the patella with the tangent of the cranial cortical line of the femur (Fig. 1D) (1,33). The mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) and mechanical medial distal tibial angle (mMDTA) were measured on craniocaudal view radiographs (14). The frontal plane alignment (FPA) was defined as the summation of the mMPTA and the mMDTA, minus 180° from the result (Fig. 1E) (12,14).

Figure 1.Measurement of the TPA (A), AMA-angle (B), tibial length (C), patellar height (D), and mMPTA and mMDTA (E) by lateral radiographs of the stifle joint flexed to 90°. TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed ranks test to compare the differences between the pre- and postoperative measurements. Analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 12.0 and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. All data are expressed as the mean ± SD.

The mean preoperative TPA was 28.8° ± 1.8° and 29.2° ± 1.3° in the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively, and decreased by 9.0° ± 2.9° and 5.4° ± 1.3° after surgery (Fig. 2). The flexion angle of the stifle joint was significantly increased in both groups (from 16.0° ± 4.6° to 29.8° ± 6.0° in the CTWO group and from 12.4° ± 5.9° to 28.4° ± 14.0° in the TPLO group). The extension angle of the stifle joint was significantly increased from 143.2° ± 6.4° to 149.8° ± 3.4° only in the CTWO group. No significant difference was measured in the TPLO group (from 141.6° ± 6.2° to 139.8° ± 6.1°). The mean AMA-angle was significantly decreased from 2.8° ± 0.8° to –2.4° ± 0.9° in the CTWO group and from 2.8° ± 0.5° to 1.8° ± 0.5° in the TPLO group. The mean preoperative tibial length was 19.8 ± 0.7 cm and 19.9 ± 0.8 cm in the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively, and decreased significantly by 19.2 ± 0.9 cm and 19.6 ± 0.8 cm postoperatively. The mean patellar height measured by the Labelle-Laurin method was significantly decreased from 0.3 ± 0.1 cm to –0.2 ± 0.2 cm in the CTWO group and no significant difference was identified in the TPLO group (from 0.4 ± 0.1 cm to 0.3 ± 0.2 cm). The mean preoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were 95.0° ± 3.2°, 95.2° ± 6.7°, and 10.2° ± 3.9° in the CTWO group and 94.6° ± 2.7°, 97.2° ± 3.8°, and 11.8° ± 5.4° in the TPLO group, respectively. The mean postoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were 90.8° ± 4.2°, 97.0° ± 3.2°, and 7.8° ± 5.1° in the CTWO group and 94.0° ± 2.2°, 95.4° ± 2.5°, and 9.4° ± 2.5° in the TPLO group, respectively. No significant pre- and postoperative differences were found in either group (Table 1).

Table 1 Radiographic evaluation of the CTWO and TPLO groups (Mean ± SD)

CTWOTPLO


Pre-OPPost-OPPre-OPPost-OP
Flexion angle (°)16.0 ± 4.629.8 ± 6.0*12.4 ± 5.928.4 ± 14.0*
Extension angle (°)143.2 ± 6.4149.8 ± 3.4*141.6 ± 6.2139.8 ± 6.1
TPA (°)28.8 ± 1.89.0 ± 2.9*29.2 ± 1.35.4 ± 1.3*
AMA-angle (°)2.8 ± 0.8–2.4 ± 0.9*2.8 ± 0.51.8 ± 0.5*
Tibial length (cm)19.8 ± 0.719.2 ± 0.9*19.9 ± 0.819.6 ± 0.8*
Patellar height (cm)0.3 ± 0.1–0.2 ± 0.2*0.4 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.2
mMPTA (°)95.0 ± 3.290.8 ± 4.294.6 ± 2.794.0 ± 2.2
mMDTA (°)95.2 ± 6.797.0 ± 3.297.2 ± 3.895.4 ± 2.5
FPA (°)10.2 ± 3.97.8 ± 5.111.8 ± 5.49.4 ± 2.5

*p < 0.05 compared to preoperative value.

CTWO, cranial tibial wedge osteotomy; TPLO, tibial plateau leveling osteotomy; OP, operative; TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle; FPA, frontal plane alignment.


Figure 2.Pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (A, C) and mediolateral (a, c) images of the cranial tibial wedge osteotomy group and pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (B, D) and mediolateral (b, d) images of the tibial plateau leveling osteotomy group.

In a previous study, the kinematic analysis showed relatively hyperextended gait patterns in the swing phase after treatment by CTWO compared to TPLO (27). Changes in extension or flexion angles can lead to clinical lameness (18). These changes can be related to muscles, fibroconnective tissues, ligaments, or osseous deformities (9,22,30). In terms of osseous deformity, since the principle of CTWO and TPLO is to neutralize cranial thrust through deformation of the tibia (10,23), several factors were evaluated in this study. Although both groups showed significantly increased flexion angles, significantly increased extension angle was identified only in the CTWO group. The extension angle may be associated with swing phase gait as previous study noted that the leg that received CTWO became hyperextended during the swing phase (27). The AMA-angle, the angle difference between the mechanical and anatomical axis of the tibia, may be considered a predisposing factor for CCLR (15). The mechanical axis is a static weight-bearing axis, which is often used to evaluate the tibia (17). In this study, both groups showed significantly decreased postoperative AMA-angles. Compared to the TPLO group, the mechanical axis of the CTWO group moved cranially against the anatomical axis, thus becoming the tibial recurvatum (16,37). Osseous genu recurvatum, one of the osseous deformities of the knee joint, is hyperextension of the knee. As it is related to knee pain, weakness, loss of the range of motion, and abnormal gait, surgical repair is required before the deformity gets worse (6,22,29). Thus, tibial recurvatum as a result of CTWO needs to be considered when planning surgery. When evaluating the angle from the frontal plane of the tibia, the FPA obtained from mMPTA and mMDTA indicates the degree of angular deformity (14). The pre- and postoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were not significantly different in both groups in this study. In terms of the FP joint, changes in FP alignment may be associated with patellar tendonitis (34). Whether congenital or acquired, patella baja is related to a decreased range of motion, knee pain, and rupture of the tendon of patella or quadriceps muscles in humans (7). In human studies, the measurement of patellar height is largely divided into direct (the relationship between the position of the patella and the femur) and indirect (the relationship between the position of the patella and the tibia) method and various methods have been reported (33). The Insall-Salvati method, an indirect method using the ratio of the patellar ligament length to the patella length, was described in normal dogs in a previous study (19). However, this method was not suitable in the present study as the ratio was not affected by both CTWO and TPLO, and secondary shortening of the patellar tendon (7) was also excluded because this study was done by cadavers. To compare pre- and postoperative changes in patellar height, the Labelle-Laurin method (33) was applied. As it was designed to diagnose only patella alta, the distance between the proximal pole of the patella and the tangent of the cranial cortical line of the femur was evaluated according to a previous study (1). Unlike TPLO, significantly decreased patellar height was identified after CTWO. It was presumed to be due to limb shortening after the wedge removal in CTWO (32). Further clinical evaluation is needed for postoperative patella baja. Finally, the postoperative TPA was relatively less close to the target TPA in the CTWO group compared to the TPLO group. Previous studies described that CTWO showed a cranial tibial long-axis shift due to the mechanical change from the removal of the bone fragment, causing the postoperative TPA to be further from the target TPA (3,21,25). In conclusion, more changes were identified in the CTWO group than the TPLO group in the radiographic comparison. From a mechanical point of view, the TPLO rather than the CTWO is recommended as a surgical procedure for large breed dogs with CCLR. Although further studies with larger numbers of dogs are needed, AMA-angle and patellar height measurement using the Labelle-Laurin method can be considered potential factors for comparing pre- and postoperative differences in radiographic evaluation.

The authors have no conflicting interests.

  1. Anagnostakos K, Lorbach O, Reiter S, Kohn D. Comparison of five patellar height measurement methods in 90° knee flexion. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 1791-1797.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Apelt D, Pozzi A, Marcellin-Little DJ, Kowaleski MP. Effect of cranial tibial closing wedge angle on tibial subluxation: an ex vivo study. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 454-459.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Bailey CJ, Smith BA, Black AP. Geometric implications of the tibial wedge osteotomy for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 169-174.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Campbell KA, Payne JT, Doornink MT, Haggerty J. Outcome of tibial closing wedge osteotomy in 55 cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifles of small dogs (<15 kg). Vet Surg 2016; 45: 1056-1062.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Carpenter DH Jr, Cooper RC. Mini review of canine stifle joint anatomy. Anat Histol Embryol 2000; 29: 321-329.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Choi IH, Chung CY, Cho TJ, Park SS. Correction of genu recurvatum by the Ilizarov method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 769-774.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Chonko DJ, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR. Patella baja and total knee arthroplasty (TKA): etiology, diagnosis, and management. Surg Technol Int 2004; 12: 231-238.
  8. Conzemius MG, Evans RB, Besancon MF, Gordon WJ, Horstman CL, Hoefle WD, et al. Effect of surgical technique on limb function after surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 226: 232-236.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cooper A, Alghamdi GA, Alghamdi MA, Altowaijri A, Richardson S. The relationship of lower limb muscle strength and knee joint hyperextension during the stance phase of gait in hemiparetic stroke patients. Physiother Res Int 2012; 17: 150-156.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Corr SA, Brown C. A comparison of outcomes following tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and cranial tibial wedge osteotomy procedures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 312-319.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Dan MJ, McMahon J, Parr WCH, Broe D, Lucas P, Cross M, et al. Evaluation of intrinsic biomechanical risk factors in patellar tendinopathy: a retrospective radiographic case-control series. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6: 2325967118816038.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Dismukes DI, Tomlinson JL, Fox DB, Cook JL, Song KJ. Radiographic measurement of the proximal and distal mechanical joint angles in the canine tibia. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 699-704.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Duerr FM, Martin KW, Rishniw M, Palmer RH, Selmic LE. Treatment of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease. A survey of ACVS Diplomates and primary care veterinarians. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27: 478-483.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Fuller MC, Kapatkin AS, Bruecker KA, Holsworth IG, Kass PH, Hayashi K. Comparison of the tibial mechanical joint orientation angles in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Can Vet J 2014; 55: 757-764.
  15. Guénégo L, Payot M, Charru P, Verwaerde P. Comparison of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angle between predisposed dogs and dogs at low risk for cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Vet J 2017; 225: 35-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Guénégo L, Vezzoni A, Vezzoni L. Comparison of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angles and patellar positions between tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO) and modified cranial closing wedge osteotomy (AMA-based CCWO) for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in large dogs with tibial plateau slopes greater than 30° and clinically normal Labradors retrievers. BMC Vet Res 2021; 17: 368.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Hette K, Rahal SC, Volpi RS, Pereira-Júnior OC, Mamprim MJ, Colombi da Silva V. Radiographic measurement of tibial joint angles in sheep. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 204-209.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Jandi AS, Schulman AJ. Incidence of motion loss of the stifle joint in dogs with naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament rupture surgically treated with tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: longitudinal clinical study of 412 cases. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 114-121.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Johnson AL, Probst CW, DeCamp CE, Rosenstein DS, Hauptman JG, Kern TL. Vertical position of the patella in the stifle joint of clinically normal large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63: 42-46.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Kaufer H. Mechanical function of the patella. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1971; 53: 1551-1560.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Kim SE, Pozzi A, Kowaleski MP, Lewis DD. Tibial osteotomies for cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency in dogs. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 111-125.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Kim TW, Lee S, Yoon JR, Han HS, Lee MC. Proximal tibial anterior open-wedge oblique osteotomy: a novel technique to correct genu recurvatum. Knee 2017; 24: 345-353.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kowaleski MP, McCarthy RJ. Geometric analysis evaluating the effect of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy position on postoperative tibial plateau slope. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17: 30-34.
    CrossRef
  24. Krotscheck U, Nelson SA, Todhunter RJ, Stone M, Zhang Z. Long term functional outcome of tibial tuberosity advancement vs. tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and extracapsular repair in a heterogeneous population of dogs. Vet Surg 2016; 45: 261-268.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Kuan S, Smith B, Black A. Tibial wedge ostectomy: complications of 300 surgical procedures. Aust Vet J 2009; 87: 438-444.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Lavernia C, D'Apuzzo M, Rossi MD, Lee D. Accuracy of knee range of motion assessment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23(6 Suppl 1): 85-91.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Lee JY, Kim G, Kim JH, Choi SH. Kinematic gait analysis of the hind limb after tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and cranial tibial wedge osteotomy in ten dogs. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med 2007; 54: 579-584.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Lee JY, Kim JH, Lee WG, Han TS, Cho K, Han HJ, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of TPLO and CTWO in canine osteoarthritis. In Vivo 2007; 21: 855-859.
  29. Manohar Babu KV, Fassier F, Rendon JS, Saran N, Hamdy RC. Correction of proximal tibial recurvatum using the Ilizarov technique. J Pediatr Orthop 2012; 32: 35-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Marzo JM, Bowen MK, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Altchek DW. Intraarticular fibrous nodule as a cause of loss of extension following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 10-18.
    CrossRef
  31. Morris E, Lipowitz AJ. Comparison of tibial plateau angles in dogs with and without cranial cruciate ligament injuries. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218: 363-366.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Oxley B, Gemmill TJ, Renwick AR, Clements DN, McKee WM. Comparison of complication rates and clinical outcome between tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and a modified cranial closing wedge osteotomy for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 739-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Phillips CL, Silver DA, Schranz PJ, Mandalia V. The measurement of patellar height: a review of the methods of imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92: 1045-1053.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Pozzi A, Dunbar NJ, Kim SE. Effect of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy on patellofemoral alignment: a study using canine cadavers. Vet J 2013; 198: 98-102.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Slocum B, Devine T. Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy: a technique for eliminating cranial tibial thrust in cranial cruciate ligament repair. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984; 184: 564-569.
  36. Tinga S, Kim SE, Banks SA, Jones SC, Park BH, Pozzi A, et al. Femorotibial kinematics in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency: a three-dimensional in-vivo fluoroscopic analysis during walking. BMC Vet Res 2018; 14: 85.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  37. Vaienti E, Scita G, Ceccarelli F, Pogliacomi F. Understanding the human knee and its relationship to total knee replacement. Acta Biomed 2017; 88(2S): 6-16.
  38. Wallace AM, Addison ES, Smith BA, Radke H, Hobbs SJ. Modification of the cranial closing wedge ostectomy technique for the treatment of canine cruciate disease. Description and comparison with standard technique. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 457-462.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

J Vet Clin 2022; 39(3): 93-99

Published online June 30, 2022 https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2022.39.3.93

Copyright © The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics.

Radiographic Comparison of Cranial Tibial Wedge Osteotomy versus Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy: A Cadaveric Study

Jiyoon Lee , Dongwook Kim , Hyejong Oh , Sungin Lee , Seok Hwa Choi , Gonhyung Kim

Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea

Correspondence to:*ghkim@cbu.ac.kr

Jiyoon Lee and Dongwook Kim contributed equally to this work.

Received: March 17, 2022; Revised: May 16, 2022; Accepted: May 16, 2022

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The present study was performed to compare cranial tibial wedge osteotomy (CTWO) and tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) through radiographic evaluation. The experiment was conducted with five cadaver dogs [mean (± SD) weight, 32.9 ± 4.1 kg; mean (± SD) age, 6 ± 2 years; three males and two females] euthanized for reasons unrelated to this study. The cadaver dogs consisted of German Shepherd (n = 3), Belgian Malinois (n = 1), and mixed breed (n = 1). CTWO and TPLO were carried out by the standard surgical method. Radiographic evaluation was performed by comparing several factors, including the flexion and extension angles, the anatomical mechanical axis angle (AMA-angle), tibial length, patellar height measurement using the Labelle-Laurin method, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), mechanical medial distal tibial angle (mMDTA), and frontal plane alignment (FPA). Both the CTWO and the TPLO groups showed significantly increased flexion angles after surgery. Only the CTWO group had significantly increased extension angle. Although both groups showed significant decreases in the AMA-angle, the mechanical axis moved cranially against the anatomical axis only in the CTWO group. The patellar height was significantly lowered in the CTWO group. No significant differences were found in mMPTA, mMDTA, or FPA. In conclusion, radiographic comparison revealed more changes in CTWO group than in TPLO group.

Keywords: cranial tibial wedge osteotomy, tibial plateau leveling osteotomy, cranial cruciate ligament rupture, dog.

Introduction

The stifle joint is a complex structure composed of the femorotibial (FT), femoropatellar (FP), and tibiofibular joints. The role of the FT joint is to support weight and the FP joint contributes to the extensor mechanism of the stifle joint (20,34). There are at least 15 ligaments in the stifle joint. The cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL), one of the most important stifle ligaments, is the main stabilizer during walking. The functions of the CrCL are to resist cranial tibial thrust, to limit excessive internal rotation of the tibia, and to prevent hyperextension of the stifle joint (5). Cruciate ligament disease is a common cause of pelvic limb lameness in dogs (8,32). Partial or complete rupture of the CrCL increases instability of the stifle joint, causes secondary osteoarthritis, meniscal injury, synovitis, and lameness, and alters the kinematics of the stifle joint (10,18). Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy (CTWO) and tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) are both corrective osteotomies used to treat cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR). The aim of both surgeries is to neutralize cranial tibial thrust, eliminate displacement of the tibia cranially in the stance phase, restore the stifle joint kinetics, and delay osteoarthritis (2,36). Theoretically, cranial tibial thrust depends on the tibial plateau angle (TPA) and the compressive force during walking (23). CTWO, the first corrective osteotomy designed by Slocum and Devine in 1984, achieves stabilization through changing the dynamics of the tibia by wedge osteotomy (35). By decreasing the TPA, the tibia does not displace cranially when weight-bearing (2). TPLO was developed by Slocum and has the same biomechanical principles as CTWO in terms of reducing the TPA (38). However, unlike CTWO, TPLO reduces the TPA through biradial osteotomy of the tibia. The selection of an appropriate surgical method is made based on the patient’s size and activity (13). After treating the CCLR by CTWO or TPLO, similar clinical outcomes were obtained (4,10) and no significant difference was identified in the degree of osteoarthritis prevention in previous studies (28). However, recently, TPLO has replaced CTWO as a common way to treat CCLR (38). When compared to CTWO, TPLO had the advantage of restoring limb function more similarly to a normal limb with lower complication rates (2,10,24). In addition, dogs that underwent CTWO revealed hyperextended gait patterns during the swing phase (27). Thus, for better understanding of those methods to apply them appropriately to the dogs with CCLR, the purpose of this study was to compare CTWO and TPLO through radiographic evaluation.

Materials and Methods

Experimental design

Five cadaver dogs euthanized for reasons unrelated to this study were used after they were donated by the owner. The dogs consisted of German Shepherd (n = 3), Belgian Malinois (n = 1), and mixed breed (n = 1), ranging in weight from 26.5 to 37.0 kg (mean weight [± SD], 32.9 ± 4.1 kg). There were three males and two females and their ages ranged from three to eight years (mean age [± SD], 6 ± 2 years). The right and left limb were assigned to the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively. The CrCL was transected by a minimally invasive approach using a scalpel blade before surgery. CTWO and TPLO were performed by the standard surgical methods. The CTWO on the right limb was performed with a 6° target TPA. After indicating the line for wedge osteotomy, an oscillating saw was used to cut the bone and the resected wedge was removed. A 3.5 mm dynamic compression plate was used to reduce the gap after osteotomy. The TPLO on the left limb was done to achieve 5° of the target TPA. Before the osteotomy, a jig was placed to stabilize the osteotomy. Then, biradial osteotomy was performed using a 2.4 mm TPLO saw blade, and a 3.5 mm locking TPLO plate was used for fracture reduction. A tibial compression test was performed after each operation. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were taken and analyzed using a digital image measurement program (eFilm Workstation 4.1, Merge Healthcare, Hartland, WI). The flexion and the extension of the stifle joint were determined by measuring the angle between lines parallel to the caudal cortical bone of the diaphysis at the femur and tibia (11,26). The TPA was evaluated by measuring the angle between the line connecting the center of the talus and the center of the intercondylar eminence of the tibia and the slope of the tibial plateau (Fig. 1A) (31). The anatomical mechanical axis angle (AMA-angle) was evaluated by measuring the angle between the anatomical axis and the mechanical axis of the tibia. The anatomical axis was defined as the line connecting the center of one-half and three-fourths of the tibial shaft. The mechanical axis was defined as the line extending from the center of the talus to the center of the intercondylar eminence of the tibia (Fig. 1B) (15). Changes in the AMA-angle generally reflect caudal angulation and transposition of the functional weight-bearing axis of the tibia against the anatomical axis. The tibial length was measured as the length from the middle of the distal ridge of the tibia to the center of the intercondylar tubercle (Fig. 1C) (38). Lateral radiographs of the stifle joint flexed to 90° were used to measure the patellar height according to the Labelle-Laurin method. The patellar height was evaluated by comparing the proximal pole of the patella with the tangent of the cranial cortical line of the femur (Fig. 1D) (1,33). The mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) and mechanical medial distal tibial angle (mMDTA) were measured on craniocaudal view radiographs (14). The frontal plane alignment (FPA) was defined as the summation of the mMPTA and the mMDTA, minus 180° from the result (Fig. 1E) (12,14).

Figure 1. Measurement of the TPA (A), AMA-angle (B), tibial length (C), patellar height (D), and mMPTA and mMDTA (E) by lateral radiographs of the stifle joint flexed to 90°. TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed ranks test to compare the differences between the pre- and postoperative measurements. Analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 12.0 and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. All data are expressed as the mean ± SD.

Results

The mean preoperative TPA was 28.8° ± 1.8° and 29.2° ± 1.3° in the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively, and decreased by 9.0° ± 2.9° and 5.4° ± 1.3° after surgery (Fig. 2). The flexion angle of the stifle joint was significantly increased in both groups (from 16.0° ± 4.6° to 29.8° ± 6.0° in the CTWO group and from 12.4° ± 5.9° to 28.4° ± 14.0° in the TPLO group). The extension angle of the stifle joint was significantly increased from 143.2° ± 6.4° to 149.8° ± 3.4° only in the CTWO group. No significant difference was measured in the TPLO group (from 141.6° ± 6.2° to 139.8° ± 6.1°). The mean AMA-angle was significantly decreased from 2.8° ± 0.8° to –2.4° ± 0.9° in the CTWO group and from 2.8° ± 0.5° to 1.8° ± 0.5° in the TPLO group. The mean preoperative tibial length was 19.8 ± 0.7 cm and 19.9 ± 0.8 cm in the CTWO group and the TPLO group, respectively, and decreased significantly by 19.2 ± 0.9 cm and 19.6 ± 0.8 cm postoperatively. The mean patellar height measured by the Labelle-Laurin method was significantly decreased from 0.3 ± 0.1 cm to –0.2 ± 0.2 cm in the CTWO group and no significant difference was identified in the TPLO group (from 0.4 ± 0.1 cm to 0.3 ± 0.2 cm). The mean preoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were 95.0° ± 3.2°, 95.2° ± 6.7°, and 10.2° ± 3.9° in the CTWO group and 94.6° ± 2.7°, 97.2° ± 3.8°, and 11.8° ± 5.4° in the TPLO group, respectively. The mean postoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were 90.8° ± 4.2°, 97.0° ± 3.2°, and 7.8° ± 5.1° in the CTWO group and 94.0° ± 2.2°, 95.4° ± 2.5°, and 9.4° ± 2.5° in the TPLO group, respectively. No significant pre- and postoperative differences were found in either group (Table 1).

Table 1 . Radiographic evaluation of the CTWO and TPLO groups (Mean ± SD).

CTWOTPLO


Pre-OPPost-OPPre-OPPost-OP
Flexion angle (°)16.0 ± 4.629.8 ± 6.0*12.4 ± 5.928.4 ± 14.0*
Extension angle (°)143.2 ± 6.4149.8 ± 3.4*141.6 ± 6.2139.8 ± 6.1
TPA (°)28.8 ± 1.89.0 ± 2.9*29.2 ± 1.35.4 ± 1.3*
AMA-angle (°)2.8 ± 0.8–2.4 ± 0.9*2.8 ± 0.51.8 ± 0.5*
Tibial length (cm)19.8 ± 0.719.2 ± 0.9*19.9 ± 0.819.6 ± 0.8*
Patellar height (cm)0.3 ± 0.1–0.2 ± 0.2*0.4 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.2
mMPTA (°)95.0 ± 3.290.8 ± 4.294.6 ± 2.794.0 ± 2.2
mMDTA (°)95.2 ± 6.797.0 ± 3.297.2 ± 3.895.4 ± 2.5
FPA (°)10.2 ± 3.97.8 ± 5.111.8 ± 5.49.4 ± 2.5

*p < 0.05 compared to preoperative value..

CTWO, cranial tibial wedge osteotomy; TPLO, tibial plateau leveling osteotomy; OP, operative; TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle; FPA, frontal plane alignment..


Figure 2. Pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (A, C) and mediolateral (a, c) images of the cranial tibial wedge osteotomy group and pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (B, D) and mediolateral (b, d) images of the tibial plateau leveling osteotomy group.

Discussion

In a previous study, the kinematic analysis showed relatively hyperextended gait patterns in the swing phase after treatment by CTWO compared to TPLO (27). Changes in extension or flexion angles can lead to clinical lameness (18). These changes can be related to muscles, fibroconnective tissues, ligaments, or osseous deformities (9,22,30). In terms of osseous deformity, since the principle of CTWO and TPLO is to neutralize cranial thrust through deformation of the tibia (10,23), several factors were evaluated in this study. Although both groups showed significantly increased flexion angles, significantly increased extension angle was identified only in the CTWO group. The extension angle may be associated with swing phase gait as previous study noted that the leg that received CTWO became hyperextended during the swing phase (27). The AMA-angle, the angle difference between the mechanical and anatomical axis of the tibia, may be considered a predisposing factor for CCLR (15). The mechanical axis is a static weight-bearing axis, which is often used to evaluate the tibia (17). In this study, both groups showed significantly decreased postoperative AMA-angles. Compared to the TPLO group, the mechanical axis of the CTWO group moved cranially against the anatomical axis, thus becoming the tibial recurvatum (16,37). Osseous genu recurvatum, one of the osseous deformities of the knee joint, is hyperextension of the knee. As it is related to knee pain, weakness, loss of the range of motion, and abnormal gait, surgical repair is required before the deformity gets worse (6,22,29). Thus, tibial recurvatum as a result of CTWO needs to be considered when planning surgery. When evaluating the angle from the frontal plane of the tibia, the FPA obtained from mMPTA and mMDTA indicates the degree of angular deformity (14). The pre- and postoperative mMPTA, mMDTA, and FPA were not significantly different in both groups in this study. In terms of the FP joint, changes in FP alignment may be associated with patellar tendonitis (34). Whether congenital or acquired, patella baja is related to a decreased range of motion, knee pain, and rupture of the tendon of patella or quadriceps muscles in humans (7). In human studies, the measurement of patellar height is largely divided into direct (the relationship between the position of the patella and the femur) and indirect (the relationship between the position of the patella and the tibia) method and various methods have been reported (33). The Insall-Salvati method, an indirect method using the ratio of the patellar ligament length to the patella length, was described in normal dogs in a previous study (19). However, this method was not suitable in the present study as the ratio was not affected by both CTWO and TPLO, and secondary shortening of the patellar tendon (7) was also excluded because this study was done by cadavers. To compare pre- and postoperative changes in patellar height, the Labelle-Laurin method (33) was applied. As it was designed to diagnose only patella alta, the distance between the proximal pole of the patella and the tangent of the cranial cortical line of the femur was evaluated according to a previous study (1). Unlike TPLO, significantly decreased patellar height was identified after CTWO. It was presumed to be due to limb shortening after the wedge removal in CTWO (32). Further clinical evaluation is needed for postoperative patella baja. Finally, the postoperative TPA was relatively less close to the target TPA in the CTWO group compared to the TPLO group. Previous studies described that CTWO showed a cranial tibial long-axis shift due to the mechanical change from the removal of the bone fragment, causing the postoperative TPA to be further from the target TPA (3,21,25). In conclusion, more changes were identified in the CTWO group than the TPLO group in the radiographic comparison. From a mechanical point of view, the TPLO rather than the CTWO is recommended as a surgical procedure for large breed dogs with CCLR. Although further studies with larger numbers of dogs are needed, AMA-angle and patellar height measurement using the Labelle-Laurin method can be considered potential factors for comparing pre- and postoperative differences in radiographic evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicting interests.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Measurement of the TPA (A), AMA-angle (B), tibial length (C), patellar height (D), and mMPTA and mMDTA (E) by lateral radiographs of the stifle joint flexed to 90°. TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle.
Journal of Veterinary Clinics 2022; 39: 93-99https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2022.39.3.93

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (A, C) and mediolateral (a, c) images of the cranial tibial wedge osteotomy group and pre- and postoperative craniocaudal (B, D) and mediolateral (b, d) images of the tibial plateau leveling osteotomy group.
Journal of Veterinary Clinics 2022; 39: 93-99https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2022.39.3.93

Table 1 Radiographic evaluation of the CTWO and TPLO groups (Mean ± SD)

CTWOTPLO


Pre-OPPost-OPPre-OPPost-OP
Flexion angle (°)16.0 ± 4.629.8 ± 6.0*12.4 ± 5.928.4 ± 14.0*
Extension angle (°)143.2 ± 6.4149.8 ± 3.4*141.6 ± 6.2139.8 ± 6.1
TPA (°)28.8 ± 1.89.0 ± 2.9*29.2 ± 1.35.4 ± 1.3*
AMA-angle (°)2.8 ± 0.8–2.4 ± 0.9*2.8 ± 0.51.8 ± 0.5*
Tibial length (cm)19.8 ± 0.719.2 ± 0.9*19.9 ± 0.819.6 ± 0.8*
Patellar height (cm)0.3 ± 0.1–0.2 ± 0.2*0.4 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.2
mMPTA (°)95.0 ± 3.290.8 ± 4.294.6 ± 2.794.0 ± 2.2
mMDTA (°)95.2 ± 6.797.0 ± 3.297.2 ± 3.895.4 ± 2.5
FPA (°)10.2 ± 3.97.8 ± 5.111.8 ± 5.49.4 ± 2.5

*p < 0.05 compared to preoperative value.

CTWO, cranial tibial wedge osteotomy; TPLO, tibial plateau leveling osteotomy; OP, operative; TPA, tibial plateau angle; AMA-angle, anatomical mechanical axis angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle; mMDTA, mechanical medial distal tibial angle; FPA, frontal plane alignment.


References

  1. Anagnostakos K, Lorbach O, Reiter S, Kohn D. Comparison of five patellar height measurement methods in 90° knee flexion. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 1791-1797.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Apelt D, Pozzi A, Marcellin-Little DJ, Kowaleski MP. Effect of cranial tibial closing wedge angle on tibial subluxation: an ex vivo study. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 454-459.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Bailey CJ, Smith BA, Black AP. Geometric implications of the tibial wedge osteotomy for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 169-174.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Campbell KA, Payne JT, Doornink MT, Haggerty J. Outcome of tibial closing wedge osteotomy in 55 cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifles of small dogs (<15 kg). Vet Surg 2016; 45: 1056-1062.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Carpenter DH Jr, Cooper RC. Mini review of canine stifle joint anatomy. Anat Histol Embryol 2000; 29: 321-329.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Choi IH, Chung CY, Cho TJ, Park SS. Correction of genu recurvatum by the Ilizarov method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 769-774.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Chonko DJ, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR. Patella baja and total knee arthroplasty (TKA): etiology, diagnosis, and management. Surg Technol Int 2004; 12: 231-238.
  8. Conzemius MG, Evans RB, Besancon MF, Gordon WJ, Horstman CL, Hoefle WD, et al. Effect of surgical technique on limb function after surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 226: 232-236.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cooper A, Alghamdi GA, Alghamdi MA, Altowaijri A, Richardson S. The relationship of lower limb muscle strength and knee joint hyperextension during the stance phase of gait in hemiparetic stroke patients. Physiother Res Int 2012; 17: 150-156.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Corr SA, Brown C. A comparison of outcomes following tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and cranial tibial wedge osteotomy procedures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 312-319.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Dan MJ, McMahon J, Parr WCH, Broe D, Lucas P, Cross M, et al. Evaluation of intrinsic biomechanical risk factors in patellar tendinopathy: a retrospective radiographic case-control series. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6: 2325967118816038.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Dismukes DI, Tomlinson JL, Fox DB, Cook JL, Song KJ. Radiographic measurement of the proximal and distal mechanical joint angles in the canine tibia. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 699-704.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Duerr FM, Martin KW, Rishniw M, Palmer RH, Selmic LE. Treatment of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease. A survey of ACVS Diplomates and primary care veterinarians. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27: 478-483.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Fuller MC, Kapatkin AS, Bruecker KA, Holsworth IG, Kass PH, Hayashi K. Comparison of the tibial mechanical joint orientation angles in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Can Vet J 2014; 55: 757-764.
  15. Guénégo L, Payot M, Charru P, Verwaerde P. Comparison of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angle between predisposed dogs and dogs at low risk for cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Vet J 2017; 225: 35-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Guénégo L, Vezzoni A, Vezzoni L. Comparison of tibial anatomical-mechanical axis angles and patellar positions between tibial plateau levelling osteotomy (TPLO) and modified cranial closing wedge osteotomy (AMA-based CCWO) for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in large dogs with tibial plateau slopes greater than 30° and clinically normal Labradors retrievers. BMC Vet Res 2021; 17: 368.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Hette K, Rahal SC, Volpi RS, Pereira-Júnior OC, Mamprim MJ, Colombi da Silva V. Radiographic measurement of tibial joint angles in sheep. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 204-209.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Jandi AS, Schulman AJ. Incidence of motion loss of the stifle joint in dogs with naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament rupture surgically treated with tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: longitudinal clinical study of 412 cases. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 114-121.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Johnson AL, Probst CW, DeCamp CE, Rosenstein DS, Hauptman JG, Kern TL. Vertical position of the patella in the stifle joint of clinically normal large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63: 42-46.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Kaufer H. Mechanical function of the patella. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1971; 53: 1551-1560.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Kim SE, Pozzi A, Kowaleski MP, Lewis DD. Tibial osteotomies for cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency in dogs. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 111-125.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Kim TW, Lee S, Yoon JR, Han HS, Lee MC. Proximal tibial anterior open-wedge oblique osteotomy: a novel technique to correct genu recurvatum. Knee 2017; 24: 345-353.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kowaleski MP, McCarthy RJ. Geometric analysis evaluating the effect of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy position on postoperative tibial plateau slope. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17: 30-34.
    CrossRef
  24. Krotscheck U, Nelson SA, Todhunter RJ, Stone M, Zhang Z. Long term functional outcome of tibial tuberosity advancement vs. tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and extracapsular repair in a heterogeneous population of dogs. Vet Surg 2016; 45: 261-268.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Kuan S, Smith B, Black A. Tibial wedge ostectomy: complications of 300 surgical procedures. Aust Vet J 2009; 87: 438-444.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Lavernia C, D'Apuzzo M, Rossi MD, Lee D. Accuracy of knee range of motion assessment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23(6 Suppl 1): 85-91.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Lee JY, Kim G, Kim JH, Choi SH. Kinematic gait analysis of the hind limb after tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and cranial tibial wedge osteotomy in ten dogs. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med 2007; 54: 579-584.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Lee JY, Kim JH, Lee WG, Han TS, Cho K, Han HJ, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of TPLO and CTWO in canine osteoarthritis. In Vivo 2007; 21: 855-859.
  29. Manohar Babu KV, Fassier F, Rendon JS, Saran N, Hamdy RC. Correction of proximal tibial recurvatum using the Ilizarov technique. J Pediatr Orthop 2012; 32: 35-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Marzo JM, Bowen MK, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Altchek DW. Intraarticular fibrous nodule as a cause of loss of extension following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 10-18.
    CrossRef
  31. Morris E, Lipowitz AJ. Comparison of tibial plateau angles in dogs with and without cranial cruciate ligament injuries. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218: 363-366.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Oxley B, Gemmill TJ, Renwick AR, Clements DN, McKee WM. Comparison of complication rates and clinical outcome between tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and a modified cranial closing wedge osteotomy for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 739-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Phillips CL, Silver DA, Schranz PJ, Mandalia V. The measurement of patellar height: a review of the methods of imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92: 1045-1053.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Pozzi A, Dunbar NJ, Kim SE. Effect of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy on patellofemoral alignment: a study using canine cadavers. Vet J 2013; 198: 98-102.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Slocum B, Devine T. Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy: a technique for eliminating cranial tibial thrust in cranial cruciate ligament repair. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984; 184: 564-569.
  36. Tinga S, Kim SE, Banks SA, Jones SC, Park BH, Pozzi A, et al. Femorotibial kinematics in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency: a three-dimensional in-vivo fluoroscopic analysis during walking. BMC Vet Res 2018; 14: 85.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  37. Vaienti E, Scita G, Ceccarelli F, Pogliacomi F. Understanding the human knee and its relationship to total knee replacement. Acta Biomed 2017; 88(2S): 6-16.
  38. Wallace AM, Addison ES, Smith BA, Radke H, Hobbs SJ. Modification of the cranial closing wedge ostectomy technique for the treatment of canine cruciate disease. Description and comparison with standard technique. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 457-462.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Vol.39 No.4 August, 2022

qrcode
qrcode
The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics

pISSN 1598-298X
eISSN 2384-0749

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on :

  • line