TDK conference 2021

Rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament is the most common cause of hindlimb lameness in dogs and there are several treatment options. Present research is comparing two surgical solutions – techniques that has been advanced from TTA (Tibial Tuberosity Advancement) surgery – from the aspect of the outcome of cTTA (circular Tibial Tuberosity Advancement) and TTA-rapid (Tibial Tuberosity Advancement rapid) methods for postoperative stability of the tibia.

It was examined, how these surgical methods change the resistance and biomechanics of the tibia against compression force. The experiment was performed in vitro on properly prepared cadavers, in which the bones were tested to static axial compression using ZWICK Z020 tensile machine. The axial compression force was examined up to fracture, and the data were plotted on a force-displacement curve. We compared the resistance of the tibias to the compressive force based on the amount of force at the moment of fracture (Fmax).

In the study, 15 right and 15 left (n=30) tibias of 15 dogs were used. Three groups were created: control group (group no. 1), tibias operated with TTA-rapid technique (group no. 2), cTTA oparated group (group no. 3). All three group included equal number (n=10), right (n=5) and left (n=5) bones, and the size of the bones was taken into consideration during the design of the groups.

The mean and the standard deviation of the maximum forces (Fmax) in each group were the follows:

• group no. 1: Fmax = 11574 N ± 1963 N

• group no. 2: Fmax = 12481 N ± 4170 N

• group no. 3: Fmax = 11843 N ± 3861 N.

The relation between the type of surgery and Fmax values were examined using linear model in which we corrected the model for bone size. Based on the results there was nos significant difference in Fmax between group no. 1 and 2 (p = 0,907), neither between group no. 1 and 3 (p = 0,630), or group no. 2 and 3 (p = 0,429).

In conclusion it can be said that TTA-rapid and cTTA surgeries do not reduce significantly the bearing capacity of the tibia, in this aspect there is no difference between the two methods. Both techniques in this study are relatively new treatment methods in the management of cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Neither method poses higher risk for tibial fracture and both can be safely applied in clinical practice.