Advanced search
1 file | 15.48 KB

Guillotine vs. pull-through technique for palmar digital neurectomy: A retrospective study on 40 horses.

Author
Organization
Abstract
Introduction: Palmar digital neurectomy (PDN) is used to manage chronic foot pain that is refractory to other treatments, and is most often performed using the guillotine technique or the pull-through technique. Materials and methods: Medical records of horses undergoing PDN under general anaesthesia (2008-2015) were reviewed. Outcome was obtained by telephone questionnaire. Results: Forty horses (90% Warmbloods) were included (25 guillotine technique, 15 pull-through technique). The guillotine technique eliminated lameness in 19/25 (76%) cases. After 1 year, 13/25 (52%) horses were performing, but after 2 years, this decreased to 8/25 (32%). The median time that horses were performing was 18 months (range 0-84 months). Postoperatively, delayed wound healing and swelling were noticed in 4/25 (16%) cases. Thirteen of 22 (59%) owners evaluated the intervention positively. The pull-through technique eliminated lameness in 13/15 (87%) horses. After 1 year, 8/15 (53%) horses were performing, but after 2 years, this decreased to 6/15 (40%). The median time that horses were performing was 12 months (range 0-78). Postoperatively, delayed wound healing was observed in 2/15 (13%) horses. Ten of 13 (77%) owners evaluated the intervention positively. There was no significant difference between treatment groups for the return to athletic activity, for residual/recurrent lameness, occurrence of postoperative complications, and owner satisfaction. Conclusion: The outcome was similar for both techniques, albeit with highly variable individual responses. Setting realistic client expectations is very important, and based on the limited proportion of horses without recurrent lameness when time progresses, proper case selection based on diagnostic analgesia and imaging should be emphasized.

Downloads

  • abstract MO ECVS 2018.docx
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • Word
    • |
    • 15.48 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Oosterlinck, Maarten, Frederik Pille, Charlotte Lubbers, and Ann Martens. 2018. “Guillotine Vs. Pull-through Technique for Palmar Digital Neurectomy: A Retrospective Study on 40 Horses.” In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS).
APA
Oosterlinck, M., Pille, F., Lubbers, C., & Martens, A. (2018). Guillotine vs. pull-through technique for palmar digital neurectomy: A retrospective study on 40 horses. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS). Presented at the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS).
Vancouver
1.
Oosterlinck M, Pille F, Lubbers C, Martens A. Guillotine vs. pull-through technique for palmar digital neurectomy: A retrospective study on 40 horses. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS). 2018.
MLA
Oosterlinck, Maarten, Frederik Pille, Charlotte Lubbers, et al. “Guillotine Vs. Pull-through Technique for Palmar Digital Neurectomy: A Retrospective Study on 40 Horses.” Proceedings of the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS). 2018. Print.
@inproceedings{8568882,
  abstract     = {Introduction: Palmar digital neurectomy (PDN) is used to manage chronic foot pain that  is refractory to other treatments, and is most often performed using the guillotine technique or the pull-through technique. 

Materials and methods: Medical records of horses undergoing PDN under general anaesthesia (2008-2015) were reviewed. Outcome was obtained by telephone questionnaire. 

Results: Forty horses (90\% Warmbloods) were included (25 guillotine technique, 15 pull-through technique). The guillotine technique eliminated lameness in 19/25 (76\%) cases. After 1 year, 13/25 (52\%) horses were performing, but after 2 years, this decreased to 8/25 (32\%). The median time that horses were performing was 18 months (range 0-84 months). Postoperatively, delayed wound healing and swelling were noticed in 4/25 (16\%) cases. Thirteen of 22 (59\%) owners evaluated the intervention positively. The pull-through technique eliminated lameness in 13/15 (87\%) horses. After 1 year, 8/15 (53\%) horses were performing, but after 2 years, this decreased to 6/15 (40\%). The median time that horses were performing was 12 months (range 0-78). Postoperatively, delayed wound healing was observed in 2/15 (13\%) horses. Ten of 13 (77\%) owners evaluated the intervention positively. There was no significant difference between treatment groups for the return to athletic activity, for residual/recurrent lameness, occurrence of postoperative complications, and owner satisfaction. 

Conclusion: The outcome was similar for both techniques, albeit with highly variable individual responses. Setting realistic client expectations is very important, and based on the limited proportion of horses without recurrent lameness when time progresses, proper case selection based on diagnostic analgesia and imaging should be emphasized.

},
  author       = {Oosterlinck, Maarten and Pille, Frederik and Lubbers, Charlotte and Martens, Ann},
  booktitle    = {Proceedings of the 27th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS)},
  language     = {eng},
  location     = {Athens, Greece},
  pages        = {1},
  title        = {Guillotine vs. pull-through technique for palmar digital neurectomy: A retrospective study on 40 horses.},
  year         = {2018},
}