Arthroscopic removal of dorsoproximal chip fractures of the proximal phalanx in standing horses.

This research paper reports on the technique and outcomes of arthroscopic removal of dorsoproximal chip fractures in the proximal phalanx of horses while they are standing. The study concludes that this surgical method is effective and can be a more cost-effective alternative to methods requiring general anesthesia, with 91% of the racehorses included in the study returning to racing post-surgery.

Methodology

The study is a retrospective analysis involving 104 horses aged between 1 and 13 years that have a dorsoproximal chip fracture of the proximal phalanx. The procedure comprises:

• The horses were restrained in standing stocks and sedated with drugs such as xylaxine, detomidine, or a combination of both.
• Local analgesia was achieved using 2% mepivacaine administered subcutaneously near the fetlock and intra-articularly.
• The surgical field was sterilized carefully, with sterile drapes being used to maintain cleanliness and impervious drapes placed on the hoof and the floor.
• Arthroscopic portals were created in the dorsal pouch of the metacarpophalangeal or metatarsophalangeal joints, and these serve as a passage for equipment to remove the chip fractures.
• A comparative analysis was undertaken using race records for Thoroughbred racehorses and data from previous studies.
• Operative and hospitalization times were compared to those of general horse population, and the risks associated with general anesthesia were dwelt on.

Results

Upon analysis, it was found that:

• No major complications occurred during or after the operation.
• An overwhelming 91% of racehorses were able to race after the surgery.
• About 78% of the racehorses were able to return to racing at the same or even a higher level post-operation.

Conclusion

The research concludes that arthroscopic surgery can be performed successfully, specifically for the removal of dorsoproximal chip fractures of the proximal phalanx in standing horses. Moreover, it supports the point of view that this particular surgical method can be a more cost-effective and safer alternative since it can avoid expenses and potential risks associated with general anesthesia. However, the procedure needs to be implemented by an experienced surgeon due to its complexity.