My latest research questions were based on these articles:
This article discusses the option of conservative treatment and some of the risk associated with CCL injuries. The main concern is the weight difference of the animal and the treatment option. This particular article goes pretty low for the weight limits for conservative treatment. Other articles indicate that Blu’s current weight, as weighed in today at the veterinarian, of 61.2 pounds (or 61 pounds and 3 ounces for the nerds in all of us) is the upper weight that is considered on the cusp of injuries that can be cared for non-surgically – conservative treatment.
What I like best about the article is that it doesn’t go right to the surgical option for the treatment. This is rare, as most other articles clearly state that surgery is the only treatment option. In fact, this article list the conservative treatment first. What I dislike is that its list for conservative treatment is short. There is so much more to conservative treatment such as not allowing the animal to run or jump. These are important factors in successful conservative treatment.
What is important to note is that this is one of the first articles I read when researching the TPLO, but I recently re-read this after I decided to do conservative treatment. I got a lot more out of the article the second time around in a different mindset. That is the blessing of this blog, as I can review my tracks in a different mindset.
This article is about research done in 2005 about the TPLO stabilizing the knee joint. What is important about this article is that the summary uses the words “may help stabilize the cranial tibial thrust as originally proposed.” This is what I call a “no brainer statement.” The person that invented the TPLO also invented the cranial tibial thrust diagnostic. So the summary is as effective as saying I detected a draft and through my trouble shooting techniques, developed by me and my logic, I found the front door open, so I closed it. I could summarize that “closing the door may have alleviated the detected draft, as that is what doors are supposed to do.” One is just using jargon to the unsuspecting reader.
What is important about this article is that the study is talking about dogs that received the ECR (extracapusular repair) that weighed between 22.7 kg (around 50 pounds) to 54.1 kg (around 119 pounds) versus dogs that received the TPLO that weighed 25 kg (around 55 pounds) to 63.9 kg (around 140 pounds). Again, this raises questions about the weight of my animal at 61 pounds. She rides here toward the lower range of animals who received both treatments. If only the summary of the research wasn’t so blatantly stupid.
Of course, this study epitomizes the use of statistics, which I won’t go into here, but I would like to see the other P-values of the not significant dependent variables. It would help someone like me who is worried about the variables that studies don’t mention as significant, so without mention, I can’t eliminate them as possible significant factors. Gotta love statistics, but only if the variables are known to the reader, otherwise only listing the significant dependent variables is filtering the information. A shame!
This article discusses many orthopedic problems that can occur. I, of course, am only interested in the knee right now. It should be noted that Blu’s hips were checked for hip dysplasia, as this can can have the same symptoms as a knee problem. It is important that veterinarians eliminate other areas of the body to ensure proper treatment. What I don’t like about this article is the statement that “Torn cranial cruciate ligaments should always be repaired with surgery.” The article goes on to give some good arguments why this is true. Again using arthritis, partially torn ligaments will always tear fully eventually, and surgery is great – nothing is better logic to sell the idea. The article goes on to tell why non-surgery treatment is not a good idea = severe arthritis. Funny, it doesn’t talk about complications to surgery, but only the questionable complications to non-surgery.
This article begins with an overview that states that “[T]orn ligaments retract, do not heal, and cannot be repaired completely.” Since Blu has a partial tear, I am not worried about the retracting, as retraction seems to be an option for a complete tear. But I could be completely wrong on this. As for not healing, this seems to be up for debate, thus the whole confusion within the veterinarian industry, surgery or conservative treatment.
This article is about canine arthritis. Again joints are broken down, so the knee joint is a section all its own. I find it very interesting that in an article about arthritis, the cause of arthritis is “resulting from rupture of the Cranial Cruciate Ligament.” Nothing more, apparently according to this article, causes knee arthritis. I find it very careless the article reasons arthritis to only CCL injuries when it is very careful to not suggest any treatment options for arthritis or how to treat a dog that suffers the apparent injury that leads to the knee arthritis.
The problem with reading these articles is that they invoke fear in the heart of the animal lover who is left to contemplate the surgery option. So I have to look at the advantage I have over others who might be reading these same articles:
Blu has a partial tear, shows no signs of meniscal damage, is not a large breed dog, but is a medium size dog, shows no signs of arthritic changes in her knee although she is already 9 years old, did not suffer the dramatic acute rupture symptoms described in articles (read initial blog entry about how she hurt herself), did have an acute injury but my veterinarian is suggesting a chronic rupture situation with her although this seems out of line, was slightly overweight (5 pounds or so) which the veterinarian did not consider a factor since the weight amount was small, and Blu has been responding extremely well to acupuncture treatment.
What it means is that my dog doesn’t fit into the mold of the average canine suffering from this injury. And maybe this is why I feel more free to look for options for treatment. But the more I read these articles, the more I feel lost in the decision process. I don’t want Blu to have arthritis, have an unstable knee, completely tear her CCL, or be in pain. Yet, it appears all article authors know this fact and play upon my desires to sway me into the decision of surgery without giving me the down side of surgery. There is not one article that lists the disadvantage of having the surgery, and there are many.
I want to have all the facts of the table in order to make the best decision and it appears American veterinarians have been able to only promote surgery options. Is it any wonder why veterinarians don’t want to do research to study the facts of long term results of TPLO or TTA surgeries? They don’t need to because they are not being met with dog owners who question the surgery option. It is the law of supply and demand while the average dog owner is not doing their part to ensure they demand the best option. This is what we do concerning medical issues and veterinarian issues.
So it is no wonder why my research shows 100 articles selling me surgery while one sells me conservative treatment and I am left swimming in too much information with very little fact. I am more convinced that I need to pay attention more to what Blu is telling me rather than what articles are trying to sell me without any concern about factual information.
Recent Comments