<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.vetsurgeon.org/utility/feedstylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>radial/ulna fractures in toy breeds with cranial-caudal ESF pin placement</title><link>https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/clinical-questions/28257/radial-ulna-fractures-in-toy-breeds-with-cranial-caudal-esf-pin-placement</link><description> Has anyone tried this before? Any thoughts? 
 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../vsu.13245 </description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 10</generator><item><title>RE: radial/ulna fractures in toy breeds with cranial-caudal ESF pin placement</title><link>https://www.vetsurgeon.org/thread/211936?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2019 22:17:58 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:a7c5daa7-16c9-4db8-b796-6d2942a2cd4e</guid><dc:creator>James Dunne</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Some thoughts: in toy breed dogs, most of the fractures are distal and most are non-comminuted and easily reduced. Plating is far easier than ESF in these cases and they tend to do very well. I have used type I(b) frames cranially in some open fractures and they do well. I think using a type II frame in the radius cranio-caudally is risky since neurovascular structures are more likely to be damaged as well as more musculotendinous units penetrated, &amp;nbsp;and there were a significant number of complications in the paper highlighted. It may be a useful technique where plate repair is unaffordable though and is likely to have a better outcome than cast repair in this population of patients.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>