Buscando Plagios

Es necesario tener acceso a estas paginas para encontrar plagios de alumnos Dogs often sustain metacarpal and metatarsal fractures (Phillips
1979), as the result of motor vehicular trauma, bitewounds, gun
shots, and lawnmower and trap injuries (Manley 1981; Muir and
Norris 1997; Okumura et al. 2000). Metacarpal and metatarsal
fractures are often open because of the limited amount ofsurrounding soft tissue, and delayed or non-union of these
fractures has been ascribed to the paucity of periosteal soft tissues.
Trauma to the regional soft tissues, both incurred at time the of
injuryor as a result of surgical intervention, can delay or prevent
such fractures from obtaining union (Kapatkin et al. 2000).
External coaptation is often advocated as the sole means of
treatment forfractures with minimal displacement, particularly
fractures involving only one or two metacarpal or metatarsal
bones (Muir and Norris 1997; Wernham and Roush 2010).
Internal fixation has beenadvocated for fractures involving three
or more metacarpal or metatarsal bones, particularly fractures
involving both the third and fourth metacarpal or metatarsal
bones, which are primarily responsiblefor weight-bearing,
fractures with an articular component, and fractures with
substantial displacement (Wernham and Rouch 2010). These
recommendations, however, have been extrapolated from humanliterature, and there is little objective information substantiating
one method of stabilisation over another for managing dogs with
metacarpal and metatarsal fractures. One study concluded thatintramedullary pinning of multiple metacarpal or metatarsal bone
fractures did not provide sufficient stabilisation, and suggested
that some form of adjunctive stabilisation be employed to obtainosseous union (Degasperi et al. 2007). Prolonged healing of
metacarpal and metatarsal fractures can occur following open
reduction and internal stabilisation (Zahn et al. 2007). Placement
of implants...