Outcomes Associated With Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Dogs

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively characterize outcomes and complications associated with osteochondral allograft transplantation for treating chondral and osteochondral lesions in a group of client-owned dogs with naturally-occurring disease. Records were reviewed for information on signalment, treated joint, underlying pathology (e.g., osteochondritis dissecans; OCD), and type, size, and number of grafts used. Complications were classified as “trivial” if no treatment was provided, “non-surgical” if non-surgical treatment were needed, “minor surgical” if a minor surgical procedure such as pin removal were needed but the graft survived and function was acceptable, or “major” if the graft failed and revision surgery were needed. Outcomes were classified as unacceptable, acceptable, or full function. Thirty-five joints in 33 dogs were treated including nine stifles with lateral femoral condyle (LFC) OCD and 10 stifles with medial femoral condyle (MFC) OCD treated with osteochondral cylinders or “plugs.” There were 16 “complex” procedures of the shoulder, elbow, hip, stifle, and tarsus using custom-cut grafts. In total there were eight trivial complications, one non-surgical complication, two minor surgical complications, and five major complications for a total of 16/35 cases with complications. Accordingly, there were five cases with unacceptable outcomes, all of whom had major complications while the other 30 cases had successful outcomes. Of the 30 cases with successful outcomes, 15 had full function and 15 had acceptable function. Based on these subjective outcome assessments, it appears osteochondral allograft transplantation is a viable treatment option in dogs with focal or complex cartilage defects. However, no conclusions can be made regarding the inferiority or superiority of allograft transplantation in comparison to other treatment options based upon these data.

Long-term follow-up of three different nerve repair strategies (repair, autografting and allografting) in one-stage replantation to treat upper extremity amputation

Objective To examine the efficacy of three different nerve repair methods for one-stage replantation to treat complete upper extremity amputation and long-term postoperative functional recovery. Methods Twenty-five patients underwent direct nerve anastomosis (Group A), for patients with nerve defects greater than 3 cm, nerve autograft transplantation be used (Group B), or patients with nerve defects less than 3 cm, nerve allograft transplantation be used (Group C) based on the severity of injury. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (higher score means poorer function-less than 25 means good effect) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain at rest and under exertion were measured. Sensation recovery time and grip function were recorded. Results The mean follow-up time was 78 ± 29 months. Group A had the lowest DASH score, while Group C had the highest DASH score. DASH score differed significantly between the three groups (P < 0.001). Sensation was not restored in two patients in Group B and two patients in Group C, and there were significant between-group differences in sensation recovery (P = 0.001). Group C had the lowest VAS score, while Group A had the highest, and there were significant differences between groups (P = 0.044). Only one patient in Group C recovered grip function. Conclusion Direct nerve anastomosis should be performed whenever possible in replantation surgery for complete upper extremity amputation, as the nerve function recovery after direct nerve anastomosis is better than that after nerve autograft transplantation or nerve allograft transplantation. Two-stage nerve autograft transplantation can be performed in patients who do not achieve functional recovery long after nerve allograft transplantation.