Next Article in Journal
Effect of a Single and Triple Dose of Levamisole on Hematological Parameters in Controlled Inflammation Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of Real-Time Kinematic Magnetic Resonance Imaging (kMRI) Techniques for Studying the Kinematics of the Spine and Joints in Dogs—Preliminary Study on Cadavers
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Outcome after Cholecystectomy without Common Bile Duct Catheterization and Flushing in Dogs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 16
10.3390/ani12162114
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques (TTAT): A Systematic Review

by
Federica Aragosa
,
Chiara Caterino
,
Giovanni Della Valle
* and
Gerardo Fatone
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80137 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(16), 2114; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162114
Submission received: 18 July 2022 / Revised: 13 August 2022 / Accepted: 16 August 2022 / Published: 17 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Diagnostic and Treatment Methods for Joint Diseases in Dogs and Cats)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The aim of this manuscript is to report and critically review the currently available literature about so-called “new generation Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques”. According to PRISMA guidelines, the authors investigated and reported data about preoperative planning, surgical procedure, outcome, and complications of these different techniques. The main problems addressed were the lack of prospective studies with a large study population and univocal data collection about preoperative planning and outcome.

Abstract

(1) Background: Several surgical techniques were described for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. This report aims to critically review the available literature focused on preoperative planning, surgical procedure, follow-up, and complications of cranial cruciate ligament rupture treated by tibial tuberosity advancement techniques; (2) Methods: three bibliographic databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus were used for a board search of TTAT (canine OR dog). Five GRADE recommendations according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied to the studies included. Data regarding preoperative planning (a measure of advancement), meniscal disease (meniscectomy, meniscal release, and late meniscal tears), and postoperative patellar tendon angle were recorded. Time frame, outcome, and complications were classified according to Cook’s guidelines; (3) Results: from 471 reports yielded, only 30 met the inclusion criteria. The common tangent method was the most commonly reported measurement technique for preoperative planning. The 40.21% of stifles presented meniscal tears at surgery, while 4.28% suffered late meniscal tears. In short-, mid-and long-term follow-ups examined showed a full/acceptable function was shown in >90% of cases. Among all new generation techniques, minor complications were reported in 33.5% of cases and major complications in 10.67%; (4) Conclusions: Compared to traditional TTA, new generation TTAT resulted effective in the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament failure, showing a lower rate of late meniscal injury but a higher rate of minor complications.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CrCL) is the most frequent cause of osteoarthritis and lameness of the hind limbs in dogs [1,2]. Decision-making regarding surgical treatment of stifle instability is the topic of many concerns and studies [3,4]. Currently, the most common surgical procedures used are tibial osteotomies and, in particular, the Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy (TPLO) and the Tibial Tuberosity Advancement (TTA) [5,6]. The latter was proposed by Montavon and Tepic [6,7], with the aim of neutralising cranial tibiofemoral shear force through displacing tibial tuberosity cranially to reach a patellar tendon angle (PTA) of 90° to the tibial plateau [8,9,10]. Further adaptations of this technique include the modified Maquet technique (MMT) [11], TTA rapid [12], the modified Maquet procedure (MMP) [13], modified Maquet Tibial Tuberosity Advancement (mTTA) [14], tibial tuberosity advancement with cranial fixation (TTA-CF) [15] and porous TTA [16] (Figure 1). These new generation tibial tuberosity advancement techniques (TTAT) involve advancing the tibial tuberosity using saw guides of different shapes and sizes, allowing an incomplete osteotomy of the tibial tuberosity [17]. Although in recent years, advances have been made in preoperative measurement methods, a discrepancy does exist between the desired tibial tuberosity advancement preoperatively measured and the actual advancement of the tibial tuberosity surgically carried out [18,19].
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no comprehensive review is available of information on the new generation TTAT. Therefore, this manuscript aims to investigate and critically review the scientific evidence about preoperative planning, outcome, and complications by a systematic review of the currently available literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Aim and Literature Search Strategy

This systematic literature review followed the PRISMA (preferred reporting items. for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses) flowchart and is in accordance with PRISMA’s statement [20], including the published retrospective or prospective studies of dogs undergoing new generation TTAT for cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Inclusion criteria were a sound description of preoperative planning (measurement of advancement), follow-up, clinical outcome, and complications. To be included, a study had to use defined complications relating to surgery. The studies lacking descriptions of complications were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. Four independent reviewers (CC, GDV, FA, GF) searched the Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases from 2011 to May 2022. Finally, we updated the database search on 15 June 2022, examining references cited in study reports included in the systematic review.
Three known relevant studies [21,22,23] were used to identify records within databases. Search terms were also checked using the Pubmed PubReMiner word frequency analysis tool. Candidate search terms were identified by looking at words in those records’ titles, keywords, and abstracts. The search strategy was developed by one of the authors (GF) and validated by testing whether it could identify the three known relevant studies. The electronic search phrases used were “modified Maquet technique” (canine OR dog), “TTA Rapid” (canine OR dog), “modified Maquet procedure” (canine OR dog), “mTTA” or “modified Tibial Tuberosity Advancement” (canine OR dog), “Tibial tuberosity Advancement with Cranial Fixation” or “TTA-CF” (canine OR dog), “Porous TTA” (canine OR dog) for all fields. Moreover, the references list of the papers selected was critically reviewed to improve the sources. A retrospective temporal limitation was placed on 2011 for MMT for relevant publications because Etchepareborde described MMT in 2011 [11]. For all techniques included, the data limit was chosen based on the first description in the literature. (TTA Rapid, 2015 [12]; MMP, 2014 [13]; mTTA, 2016 [14]; TTA-CF [15], 2018; Porous TTA, 2019 [16]). The flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process for MMP is described in Figure 2.

2.2. Study Selection

We reviewed titles and abstracts of all records and discussed inconsistencies until consensus was obtained. Then two researchers (FA, CC) independently screened the titles and abstracts of all articles retrieved. In case of disagreement, consensus on which articles to screen full text was reached by discussion. If necessary, a third researcher (GVD) was referred to make the final decision. Next, two researchers (FA, CC) independently screened full texts to determine eligibility. Again, all discrepancies were resolved between the authors, with the availability of a third-party adjudicator (GF).

2.3. Data Extraction

Two review authors (FA, CC) independently extracted data from eligible studies. Extracted data were compared, and any discrepancy was resolved through discussion or consulting another researcher (GF). The descriptive variables extracted were the author’s name, study year, sample size, measurement method for required advancement, presence of meniscal injuries, follow-up, and complications. Any measure of planning, outcome, and complications was eligible for inclusion. Results for preoperative planning were reported as a percentage. When recorded, we provided a percentage of dogs with meniscal injuries at presentation undergoing meniscectomy and the percentage of meniscal release performed during TTAT. Furthermore, the number of late meniscal tears was recorded. Postoperative patellar tendon angle (PTA) was reported as a mean for each study and range or standard deviation when provided.
No restrictions on the length of follow-up or number of measurement time points were considered when interpreting study findings. According to Cook et al. (2010) guidelines [24], we summarised complications as catastrophic, major and minor and divided time frames as perioperative (0–3 months), short-term (3–6 months), and mid-term (6–12 months) and long-term (>12 months). If several assessments were performed during a time frame, we considered the last one for analysis. Clinical outcome was assessed as full function, acceptable function and unacceptable function based on restoration of performances from the preinjury period, and we recorded results as a percentage. If the outcome was reported as lameness degree, we merged data for full/acceptable function of dogs with no lameness or sporadic lameness.
We decided to present the results grouped according to the technique used in tables, but we listed results considering every domain. When data were missing or unclear, corresponding studies were excluded from syntheses.
GDV and FA independently assessed the quality of papers included using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklists. Every study design was combined with the corresponding JBI checklist. The case report checklist comprised a total of 8 sub-items, and the case series checklist contains 10 sub-items. In this systematic review, we verified case reports and case series checklists to increase the accuracy of the evaluation. If it was clearly described, it was evaluated as “Yes”, “No” if it was not presented, “Unclear”, if it was not clear, and “Not applicable” if it could not be applied. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. In each of the sub-items, the number of studies evaluated as “Yes”, “No”, “Unclear”, and “Not applicable” were reported. According to Munn et al. (2019) guidance [25], we presented the results of critical appraisal for all questions via a table rather than summarising with a score since several study designs were included in this review.
Two authors (FA, CC) independently assessed the certainty of the evidence, using the five GRADE recommendations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) as it related to the studies that contributed data to analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low [26].
Considering the inclusion of different study designs and interventions, synthesis without meta-analysis (SwiM) checklist [27] was applied. Meta-analyses could not be undertaken due to the heterogeneity of surgeries and study designs.

3. Results

Database Review

We found 471 records in database searching from 2011 to June 2022 (depending on the first publication for each technique). After duplicate removal (n = 117) and exclusion of book sections, ex vivo studies, or thesis (n = 178), we screened 176 records, from which we reviewed 68 full-text documents, and finally included 29 papers [3,11,12,13,15,16,21,22,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. Later, we searched records from the reference lists of initially included studies, founding one paper that fulfilled inclusion criteria [14]. Only 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and reported a mean of 35 cases (range 1–174). We excluded 33 studies from our review because they treated other surgical techniques than TTAT and 6 studies about cats. Included studies by year, study design, number of cases, GRADE, and surgical planning are summarised in Table 1.
We included the following six techniques in this systematic review: MMT [11], TTA rapid [12], MMP [13], mTTA [14], TTA-CF [15], and porous TTA [16]. A total of 1051 stifles were reviewed: MMT (n = 415), TTA rapid (n = 292), MMP (n = 154), mTTA (n = 59), TTA-CF (n = 25) and porous TTA (n = 106). The modified Maquet technique was applied in 10 studies, while TTA rapid in 8, MMP in 7, mTTA in 3, TTA-CF in 3, and porous TTA in 2. One paper [21] included several surgical techniques (MMT, TTA rapid, MMP, and mTTA), so we listed them in tables for each domain.
Nine studies included have a very low level of certainty (30%), 4 papers have a low level (13.3%), 7 moderate (23.3%), and 10 high levels (33.3%). Thirteen studies have a prospective design (43.33%).
The method used to measure the amount of advancement of the tibial tuberosity was reported in 24/30 studies, with the common tangent method being most represented (n = 8), followed by Orthomed (n = 5). In nine studies, no measurement technique was indicated. Only 6/30 studies reported postoperative PTA (20%). Among the reports considered, 85/108 stifles had postoperative angles clearly defined (78.7%), and postoperative PTA was in the reported range of 90 ± 5°, allowing neutralisation of tibiofemoral shear forces according to Kapler et al. (2015) [22].
A total of 226 cases of meniscal tears detected at surgery time were described in 15 papers, all treated by meniscectomy. In five articles, no meniscal tear was detected during the surgical inspection by arthrotomy or arthroscopy. In 10 papers, no data for meniscal injuries were given. Considering 562 stifles undergoing surgery, which were described in 20 papers, 40.21% presented meniscal tears at surgery time. The meniscal release is reported in 5/30 papers (58 stifles), but it was not performed in 14/30 articles. As regards late meniscal tears, 16/30 papers reported injuries during follow-up time, with 22 cases recorded in 516 stifles (4.28%).
In all papers, recovery was clinically assessed, except for two [22,33], for which only data regarding PTA [22] or radiography [33] were registered. Postoperative radiographic assessments were performed in 27 studies (90%), while an owners’ survey was employed as an outcome assessment in 7 papers (23.3%). Other procedures assessing the follow-up, such as gait analysis (13.3%), evaluation of post-operative stifle range of motion-ROM (3.3%), or baropodometric score (3.3%), were less frequently employed. According to the percentage reported in 21/30 studies (70%), the mean perioperative recovery is 64.76% of full/acceptable function. Perioperative follow-up was reported in 455/495 treated stifles, and a full/acceptable outcome was reported for 340/455 stifles (74.7%). All data extracted regarding outcomes are listed in Table 2.
Short-term follow-up was recorded in 21/30 papers (70%) with a mean of 88.9% of full/acceptable function. These studies examined 648 stifles, but follow-up was reported in 575 stifles in total, 535 of the latter (93%) showed full/acceptable function.
Mid-term follow-up was reported in 15/30 papers (50%) with a mean of 87.8% of full/acceptable function. Follow-up evaluations revealed a full/acceptable function in 313 stifles on 337 examined (92.9%) during this time frame. Papers cited described a total of 390 surgeries, but mid-term follow-up was available in 86.4% of cases.
Five papers collected data about long-term follow-up (16.7%), with a mean of 96.35% of full/acceptable outcomes. Eighty-seven stifles in these studies showed a full/acceptable function upon 92 stifles recorded (94.6%). These papers listed 208 TTATs in total, but only 92 surgeries had a long-term follow-up (44.2%).
Minor complications were recorded for 27/30 papers included (90%), while major complications were listed by all studies except one [11]. No catastrophic complications were reported in any study. Minor and major complications are summarised in Table 3.
The mean minor complication rate was 20.94% for 27 papers. The most frequent minor complications reported were tibial crest fissures and fractures, consisting of 274 of 967 stifles (28.33%) and representing 84.57% of minor complications collected in all studies (274/324). According to reviewed literature, these 70 fractures of the tibial crest and 204 fissures did not need further treatment. For six stifles, minor complications were not clearly defined [14,37].
The mean major complication rate was 24.05% for 29 studies. Considering 1031 were stifles examined, 110 surgeries suffered major complications (10.67%). Most commonly, tibial crest fissures were reported, with 31 cases (28.18% of all major complications listed). Fissures that required further treatment represented 3% of the stifles included. As regards tibial crest fractures, 25/1031 stifles were described (2.43%), followed by 14 surgical site infections (1.36%) and 13 tibial diaphysis fractures (1.26%).

4. Discussion

This paper reviews and summarises the available evidence of TTAT in dogs through a systematic review of currently available literature. Although TTA has become increasingly popular, limited evidence was found in the veterinary literature with a sound description of preoperative planning, outcome, and complications. Overall, according to the literature reviewed, a limited number of studies focused on this topic. The data is derived mainly from retrospective studies with a limited number of cases. In addition, only 1/3 of the included papers present a high level of evidence (33.3%), so the extracted data needs critical interpretation.
The debate on the surgical treatment of CrCL is still animated. Despite the high number of procedures developed to stabilise the stifle joint, few studies reported mid- to the long-term outcomes, and even fewer studies reported preoperative planning. As a matter of fact, the predominant form of research was observational case series, resulting in the preponderance of studies with a low level of evidence. Unfortunately, this type of study is limited by confounding variables that decrease the evidentiary value. The only study design that can determine a causal interference is a randomised, controlled clinical trial, and there was only one such study included in this systematic review [28].
Beyond those included in this review, several techniques and adaptations were proposed to achieve joint stabilisation, such as TTA-2, fusion TTA, and circular TTA. However, no evidence was available in the literature for these techniques. Fusion TTA was only anecdotally reported in thesis or conference [49], while for TTA-2, only in vitro study was published [50,51]. For this reason, they were excluded.
Different methods were adopted to assess the advancement required to obtain a postoperative PTA of 90 ± 5°. According to the reviewed literature, 1/3 of papers selected the common tangent method. As previously reported, this method has poor reliability [52] and the tendency to underestimate the necessary advancement [53], leading to under-correction during surgical planning.
Only 20% of studies included recorded postoperative PTA, usually as a mean. According to them, 78.7% of surgeries obtained a final PTA of 90° (±5°), allowing the neutralisation of the shear forces [22,54]. These results could influence the outcome, as a postoperative PTA outside this range could lead to instability and persistent cranial tibial subluxation [52,55]. This residual cranial tibial translation is a potentially post-operative finding after TTAT, contributing to late meniscal tears [56,57]. In agreement with this consideration, we chose to analyse meniscal injuries separately from other complications, considering presentation, meniscectomy, and meniscal release. Among the studies examined, meniscal injury was found in 40.21% of stifles undergoing TTAT and consequently treated with meniscectomy.
Previously published studies reported 10% postoperative secondary meniscus damage after traditional tibial tuberosity advancement [57], these rates can be as high as 20% without meniscal release [58]. Although the release of the medial meniscus disturbs load transmission through the meniscus, increasing instability and cartilage loading [59]. Late meniscal tears in studies included in this review (4.28%) are lower than previously reported. As previously noted, the choice of meniscal release probably influenced the incidence of postoperative meniscal injuries. Still, it is not possible to investigate this result statistically as only five studies chose this technique [12,23,29,41,45].
Nevertheless, all late meniscal tears were recorded in 16 studies where the meniscal release was not performed, except for 1 knee [41]. A possible reason for the relatively high number of secondary meniscal injuries after traditional TTA could be persistent craniocaudal stifle instability [55]. However, considering that few studies evaluated long-term follow-up, probably not all meniscal injuries were identified.
There was various evidence on the clinical outcome for procedures included. This is an expected result because several methodologies and outcome assessments were used in the papers, including visual gait evaluation, owner perceptions, and objective force plate gait analysis. The interpretation and clinical implications may vary even within a singular outcome assessment. To minimise the mistakes in data interpretation, we categorised the outcome using the time frames proposed by Cook et al. (2010) [24].
Most of the reviewed papers provided clinical and radiographic assessments during the follow-up. Unfortunately, for TTAT, other objective assessment tools such as gait analysis or baropodometric score were not routinely employed. Given all surgical techniques, 74.7% of cases regained a full/acceptable limb function in the perioperative period, 93% in short-term follow-up, 92.9% during mid-term and 94.6% up to 1 year (long-term) showing to be able to treat the stifle deficiency over time. Nevertheless, previous studies using gait analysis as an assessment instrument of outcome concluded that despite the significant improvement after traditional TTA, normal limb function was not wholly restored [55,57]. Moreover, comparative studies demonstrated the superiority of TPLO over TTA, achieving a higher level of functional outcome [3,4]. At the same time, a systematic review of techniques for treating CrCL rupture in dogs established the superiority of TPLO over extracapsular sutures but found insufficient evidence concerning differences in the outcomes of TPLO and TTA [60]. Further research comparing TPLO and TTA with subjective gait analysis could not detect differences in the decrease in lameness between the techniques, while objective gait analysis supports the superiority of TPLO [61]. All these papers omitted the new generation of TTA techniques. However, the overall comparisons of these studies are difficult due to the lack of compliance in the data among publications.
To avoid mistakes, complications were classified as catastrophic, major and minor, as defined by Cook and colleagues [24]. In the present study, 324/967 surgeries (33.5%) suffered a minor complication. Tibial tuberosity fractures and fissures were described in 84.57% of cases, but only episodically. These complications required further treatments. These results are not conforming to the minor complication rates reported for traditional TTA. Beer et al. (2018), in a previous systematic review on traditional techniques, recorded 11.6% of minor complications [61]. This evidence cannot be generalised to the new TTAT since the rationale of osteotomy, the spreader and the fixation system employed in these techniques are substantially different from the original TTA, leading to a different risk of complications. Moreover, the major complications reported accounted for 10.67%. Among these, tibial tuberosity fractures and fissures requiring revision surgery accounting for 6%.
Unlike previously published studies, late meniscal injuries requiring second surgery were not counted. Probably, if included, the major complication rate would be higher. Nevertheless, our results align with a previous systematic review of traditional TTA, where major complications accounted for 13.2% [61]. This evidence highlights that the risk of requiring surgical revision is the same for traditional and new-generation TTA.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the currently available literature about new generation TTAT according to PRISMA guidelines. The main limitation is the lack of randomised, controlled clinical trials with a large study population and univocal data collection about preoperative planning, outcome, and complications.
Our results show that the frequency of minor complications is higher than previously reported for traditional TTA. Including recently developed techniques may have conditioned this result, as their experience has not been established over time. Conversely, the incidence of late meniscal tears is lower for new generation TTAT than for traditional TTA, but most of the included studies only recorded data in perioperative and short-term follow-up. Further studies with prospective designs are needed on the new generation of TTAT to support the hypothesis that these techniques could reduce the rate of late meniscal tears.

Author Contributions

All authors equally contribute to the Manuscript preparation. F.A. and G.D.V. independently screened titles and abstracts of all articles retrieved and extracted data. G.F. solved any discrepancy as a third-party adjudicator and C.C. provide the final manuscript review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Claudio Palumbo for his kind assistance with the Figure 1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lampman, T.J.; Lund, E.M.; Lipowitz, A.J. Cranial cruciate disease: Current status of diagnosis, surgery, and risk for disease. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2003, 16, 122–126. [Google Scholar]
  2. Witsberger, T.H.; Villamil, J.A.; Schultz, L.G.; Hahn, A.W.; Cook, J.L. Prevalence of and risk factors for hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008, 232, 1818–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Livet, V.; Baldinger, A.; Viguier, É.; Taroni, M.; Harel, M.; Carozzo, C.; Cachon, T. Comparison of outcomes associated with tibial plateau levelling osteotomy and a modified technique for tibial tuberosity advancement for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs: A randomized clinical study. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2019, 32, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Moore, E.V.; Weeren, R.; Paek, M. Extended long-term radiographic and functional comparison of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy vs tibial tuberosity advancement for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the dog. Vet. Surg. 2020, 49, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Slocum, B.; Slocum, T.D. Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the canine. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Anim. Pract. 1993, 23, 777–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Montavon, P.M. Advancement of the tibial tuberosity for the treatment of cranial cruciate deficient canine stifle. In Proceedings of the 1st World Orthopaedic Veterinary Congress, Munich, Germany, 5–8 September 2002; Volume 152. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tepic, S.; Damur, D.M.; Montavon, P.M. Biomechanics of the stifle joint. In Proceedings of the 1st World Orthopaedic Veterinary Congress, Munich, Germany, 5–8 September 2002; Volume 152, pp. 189–190. [Google Scholar]
  8. Apelt, D.; Kowaleski, M.P.; Boudrieau, R.J. Effect of tibial tuberosity advancement on cranial tibial subluxation in canine cranial cruciate-deficient stifle joints: An in vitro experimental study. Vet. Surg. 2007, 36, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kipfer, N.M.; Tepic, S.; Damur, D.M.; Guerrero, T.; Hässig, M.; Montavon, P.M. Effect of tibial tuberosity advancement on femorotibial shear in cranial cruciate-deficient stifles. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2008, 21, 385–390. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoffmann, D.E.; Kowaleski, M.P.; Johnson, K.A.; Evans, R.B.; Boudrieau, R.J. Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of the canine cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle with varying angles of stifle joint flexion and axial loads after tibial tuberosity advancement. Vet. Surg. 2011, 40, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Etchepareborde, S.; Brunel, L.; Bollen, G.; Balligand, M. Preliminary experience of a modified maquet technique for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2011, 24, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Samoy, Y.; Verhoeven, G.; Bosmans, T.; Van der Vekens, E.; de Bakker, E.; Verleyen, P.; Van Ryssen, B. TTA rapid: Description of the technique and short term clinical trial results of the first 50 cases. Vet. Surg. 2015, 44, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ness, M.G. The Modified Maquet Procedure (MMP) in Dogs: Technical Development and Initial Clinical Experience. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2016, 52, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Medeiros, R.M.; Silva, M.A.; Teixeira, P.P.; Dias, L.G.; Chung, D.G.; Zani, C.C.; Feliciano, M.A.; Da Conceicao, M.E.; Machado, M.R.; Rocha, A.G.; et al. Use of castor bean polymer in developing a new technique for tibial tuberosity advancement for cranial cruciate ligament rupture correction in dogs. Vet. Med. 2016, 61, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhalniarovich, Y.; Sobolewski, A.; Waluś, G.; Adamiak, Z. Evaluation, Description of the Technique, and Clinical Outcomes After Tibial Tuberosity Advancement with Cranial Fixation (TTA CF) for Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in 22 Dogs. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2018, 33, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Trisciuzzi, R.; Fracassi, L.; Martin, H.A.; Monopoli Forleo, D.; Amat, D.; Santos-Ruiz, L.; De Palma, E.; Crovace, A.M. 41 Cases of Treatment of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture with Porous TTA: Three Years of Follow Up. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chong, W.L. Tibial Diaphyseal Fracture Rates Following Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Rapid (TTAR) and Traditional Tibial Tuberosity Advancement (tTTA). Vet. Evid. 2019, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pillard, P.; Livet, V.; Cabon, Q.; Bismuth, C.; Sonet, J.; Remy, D.; Fau, D.; Carozzo, C.; Viguier, E.; Cachon, T. Evaluation of a new method to determine the tibial tuberosity advancement distance required to reduce the patellar tendon-tibial plateau angle to 90° with the modified Maquet technique in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2017, 78, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bielecki, M.J.; Schwandt, C.S.; Scharvogel, S. Effect of tibial subluxation on the measurements for tibial tuberosity advancement in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament deficiency: An ex vivo study. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2014, 27, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Serrani, D.; Picavet, P.P.; Marti, J.; Bouvy, B.; Balligand, M.; Witte, P.G. veterinary sciences Tibial Plateau Leveling Following Tibial Tuberosity Advancement: A Case Series. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kapler, M.W.; Marcellin-Little, D.J.; Roe, S.C. Planned wedge size compared to achieved advancement in dogs undergoing the modified Maquet procedure. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2015, 28, 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Della Valle, G.; Caterino, C.; Aragosa, F.; Micieli, F.; Costanza, D.; Di Palma, C.; Piscitelli, A.; Fatone, G. Outcome after Modified Maquet Procedure in dogs with unilateral cranial cruciate ligament rupture: Evaluation of recovery limb function by use of force plate gait analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cook, J.L.; Evans, R.; Conzemius, M.G.; Lascelles, B.D.; McIlwraith, C.W.; Pozzi, A.; Clegg, P.; Innes, J.; Schulz, K.; Houlton, J.; et al. Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine. Vet. Surg. 2010, 39, 905–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Munn, Z.; Barker, T.H.; Moola, S.; Tufanaru, C.; Stern, C.; McArthur, A.; Stephenson, M.; Aromataris, E. Methodological quality of case series studies: An introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2127–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M., Welch, V., Flemyng, E., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. Campbell, M.; McKenzie, J.E.; Sowden, A.; Katikireddi, S.V.; Brennan, S.E.; Ellis, S.; Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Ryan, R.; Shepperd, S.; Thomas, J.; et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ 2020, 368, l6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Knebel, J.; Eberle, D.; Steigmeier-Raith, S.; Reese, S.; Meyer-Lindenberg, A. Outcome after Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy and Modified Maquet Procedure in Dogs with Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2020, 33, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Terreros, A.; Daye, R.M. Prospective Evaluation of a Citrate-Based Biomaterial Wedge for a Modified Maquet Procedure in the Treatment of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Dogs. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2021, 34, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramirez, J.; Barthélémy, N.; Noël, S.; Claeys, S.; Etchepareborde, S.; Farnir, F.; Balligand, M. Complications and outcome of a new modified Maquet technique for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in 82 dogs. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2015, 28, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Freitas, I.B.; Hespanha, A.C.; Marques, D.R.; Monteiro, J.F.; Eggert, M.; Becker, A.; Ibañez, J.F. A report of the Maquet procedure for the management of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in a dog: A case report. Semin. Agrar. 2017, 38, 1661–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Custodio Marques, D.R. Complications Associated with the Maquet Procedure–Two Case Reports in Dog’s. SOJ Vet. Sci. 2017, 3, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lefebvre, M.D.; Broux, O.R.; Barthélémy, N.P.; Hamon, M.; Moyse, E.V.; Bouvy, B.M.; Balligand, M.H. Risk factors for tibial damage associated with the modified Maquet technique in 174 stifles. Vet. Surg. 2018, 47, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Barros, L.P.; Ribeiro, L.R.R.; Pereira, L.C.d.P.C.; Ferreira, F.L.M.; da Conceição, M.E.B.A.M.; Dias, L.G.G.G. Prospective clinical assessment of tibial tuberosity advancement for the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. Acta Cir. Bras. 2018, 33, 684–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Valiño-Cultelli, V.; Varela-López, Ó.; González-Cantalapiedra, A. Does prgf work? A prospective clinical study in dogs with a novel polylactic acid scaffold injected with prgf using the modified maquet technique. Animals 2021, 11, 2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Valiño-Cultelli, V.; Varela-López, Ó.; González-Cantalapiedra, A. Preliminary Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of a Novel Resorbable Implant of Polylactic Acid (PLA) for Tibial Tuberosity Advancement (TTA) by Modified Maquet Technique (MMT). Animals 2021, 11, 1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Arican, M.; Parlak, K.; Sahin, H. Evaluation and application of the TTA-rapid method in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Acta Vet. Beogr. 2017, 67, 238–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Butterworth, S.J.; Kydd, D.M. TTA-Rapid in the treatment of the canine cruciate deficient stifle: Short-and medium-term outcome. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2017, 58, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dyall, B.; Schmökel, H. Tibial tuberosity advancement in small-breed dogs using TTA rapid implants: Complications and outcome. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2017, 58, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Heremans, J.; de Bakker, E.; Van Ryssen, B.; Samoy, Y. Therapeutic ultrasound as an aid in tibial fracture management in a dog. Vlaams Diergeneeskd Tijdschr. 2017, 86, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Roydev, R.; Goranov, N. Long-Term Clinical and Goniometric Follow-Up of TTA Rapid Surgery in Dogs with Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture. Acta Vet. Eurasia 2021, 47, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bernardi-Villavicencio, C.; Jimenez-Socorro, A.N.; Rojo-Salvador, C.; Robles-Sanmartin, J.; Rodriguez-Quiros, J. Short-term outcomes and complications of 65 cases of porous TTA with flange: A prospective clinical study in dogs. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Morato, G.O.; Rocha, A.G.; Chung, D.G.; da Conceição, M.E.; Minto, B.W.; Filho, J.G.; Dias, L.G. Lyophilized and gamma-sterilized allogeneic bone implant used as a spacer for advancement of a modified tibial tuberosity in the treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Medeiros, R.M.; Silva, M.A.; Teixeira, P.P.; Chung, D.G.; Conceição, M.E.; Chierice, G.O.; Padilha Filho, J.G.; Dias, L.G. Long-term assessment of a modified tibial tuberosity advancement technique in dogs. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2018, 70, 1053–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Retallack, L.M.; Daye, R.M. A modified Maquet-tibial tuberosity advancement technique for treatment of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease: Short term outcome and complications. Vet. Surg. 2018, 47, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Adamiak, Z.; Sobolewski, A.; Walus, G.; Zhalniarovich, Y.; Glodek, J. Single-stage Bilateral Tibial Tuberosity Advancement with Cranial Fixation in an English Bulldog—A Case Report. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2018, 33, 63–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhalniarovich, Y.; Sobolewski, A.; Waluś, G.; Adamiak, Z. Tibial Diaphyseal Fracture as a Major Complication of Tibial Tuberosity Advancement with Cranial Fixation (TTA CF)—A Case Report. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2019, 34, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lorenz, N.D.; Pettitt, R. Cranial tibial plating in the management of failed tibial tuberosity advancement in four large breed dogs. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2014, 27, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Garcia Querol, E. CTWO vs. FUSION-TTA as a Surgical Treatment to Repair the Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Dogs; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  50. McCartney, W.; Ober, C.; Benito, M.; MacDonald, B. Comparison of tension band wiring and other tibial tuberosity advancement techniques for cranial cruciate ligament repair: An experimental study. Acta Vet. Scand. 2019, 61, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Torrington, A.; Hopmans, J.; Al, E. Tibial tuberosity advancement 2: Current data from multicenter clinical trial. In Proceedings of the Kyon Symposium, Boston, MA, USA, 24–26 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  52. Millet, M.; Bismuth, C.; Labrunie, A.; Marin, B.; Filleur, A.; Pillard, P.; Sonet, J.; Cachon, T.; Etchepareborde, S. Measurement of the patellar tendon-tibial plateau angle and tuberosity advancement in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2013, 26, 469–478. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cadmus, J.; Palmer, R.H.; Duncan, C. The Effect of Preoperative Planning Method on Recommended Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Cage Size. Vet. Surg. 2014, 43, 995–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Burns, C.G.; Boudrieau, R.J. Modified tibial tuberosity advancement procedure with tuberosity advancement in excess of 12 mm in four large breed dogs with cranial cruciate ligament-deficient joints. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2008, 21, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Skinner, O.T.; Kim, S.E.; Lewis, D.D.; Pozzi, A. In vivo femorotibial subluxation during weight-bearing and clinical outcome following tibial tuberosity advancement for cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency in dogs. Vet. J. 2013, 196, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jin, D.W.; Peck, J.N.; Tano, C.A.; Morgan, M.J. Discrepancy between true distance of tibial tuberosity advancement and cage size: An ex vivo study. Vet. Surg. 2019, 48, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Voss, K.; Damur, D.M.; Guerrero, T.; Haessig, M.; Montavon, P.M. Force plate gait analysis to assess limb function after tibial tuberosity advancement in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2008, 21, 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  58. Lafaver, S.; Miller, N.A.; Stubbs, W.P.; Taylor, R.A.; Boudrieau, R.J. Tibial tuberosity advancement for stabilization of the canine cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle joint: Surgical technique, early results, and complications in 101 dogs. Vet. Surg. 2007, 36, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pozzi, A.; Litsky, A.S.; Field, J.; Apelt, D.; Meadows, C.; Johnson, K.A. Pressure distributions on the medial tibial plateau after medial meniscal surgery and tibial plateau levelling osteotomy in dogs. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2008, 21, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bergh, M.S.; Sullivan, C.; Ferrell, C.L.; Troy, J.; Budsberg, S.C. Systematic review of surgical treatments for cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2014, 50, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Beer, P.; Bockstahler, B.; Schnabl-Feichter, E. Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and tibial tuberosity advancement—A systematic review. Tierarztl Prax Ausg. K Kleintiere—Heimtiere 2018, 46, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02114 g001 550
Figure 1. Graphic illustrations of TTAT included: (A) modified Maquet technique (MMT), (B) TTA rapid, (C) modified Maquet procedure (MMP), (D) modified Maquet tibial tuberosity advancement (mTTA), (E) tibial tuberosity advancement with cranial fixation (TTA-CF) and (F) porous TTA (designed by Claudio Palumbo).
Figure 1. Graphic illustrations of TTAT included: (A) modified Maquet technique (MMT), (B) TTA rapid, (C) modified Maquet procedure (MMP), (D) modified Maquet tibial tuberosity advancement (mTTA), (E) tibial tuberosity advancement with cranial fixation (TTA-CF) and (F) porous TTA (designed by Claudio Palumbo).
Animals 12 02114 g001
Animals 12 02114 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews included searches of databases, registers, and other sources.
Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews included searches of databases, registers, and other sources.
Animals 12 02114 g002
Table
Table 1. List of reviewed papers: study details, sample size, surgical planning, and meniscal injuries.
Table 1. List of reviewed papers: study details, sample size, surgical planning, and meniscal injuries.
AuthorsStudy DesignGRADEN. StiflesSurgical TechniqueMeasurement TechniqueMeniscal Tears at SurgeryMeniscectomyMeniscal ReleaseLate Meniscal TearsPTA PostYear
Lorenz et al.Case seriesVery Low1MMP-1----2014
Kapler et al.Retrospective studyVery Low38MMPOrthomed and Modified Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Measurement Method----95.9° (86.7°–108.2°)2015
Ness et al.Clinical trialModerate26MMPOrthomed-NONO--2016
Knebel et al.Prospective, randomised, controlled studyHigh35MMPOrthomed2222NO2-2020
Terreros et al.Prospective clinical studyModerate15MMPTibial Plateau Method444-93.4° ± 2.1°2020
Della Valle et al.Prospective clinical studyModerate35MMPOrthomed27276089.7° ± 2.3°2021
Serrani et al.Retrospective studyLow4MMP--NONONO95.75°2022
Etchepareborde et al.Retrospective studyVery Low20MMTTransparency (Kyon)88NO2-2011
Ramirez et al.Retrospective studyModerate84MMTTransparency (Kyon)3939NO3-2015
Marques et al.Case reportVery Low1MMTOrthomedNONONONO-2017
Marques et al.Case seriesVery Low2MMT-NONONONO-2017
Lefebvre et al.Retrospective studyModerate174MMT------2017
Retallack et al.Retrospective clinical cohort studyModerate35MMT-212114NO-2017
De Barros et al.Prospective clinical studyVery Low21MMTSoftware?-----2018
Valino-Cultelli et al.Prospective randomised studyHigh24MMTTibial Plateau Method-----2021
Valino-Cultelli et al.Prospective clinical studyHigh53MMTTibial Plateau Method-----2021
Serrani et al.Case seriesLow1MMTTibial Plateau MethodNONONO183°2022
Samoy et al.Prospective clinical studyHigh50TTA RapidCommon tangent Method2121290-2015
Arican et al.Prospective studyHigh17TTA RapidTemplate and Common tangent MethodNONONO--2017
Butterworth et al.Retrospective studyModerate152TTA RapidTibial Axis Method4444NO9-2017
Dyall et al.Retrospective studyLow48TTA RapidAnatomical Landmark Method and Common tangent Method1919NO290.8° ± 2.9°2017
Heremans et al.Case reportVery Low1TTA Rapid-NONONONO-2017
Livet et al.Prospective randomised studyHigh13TTA RapidLong Axis Method44NO291.1° (89.1–92.9°)2019
Roydev et al.Retrospective studyLow10TTA RapidCommon Tangent Method5551-2021
Serrani et al.Retrospective studyLow1TTA Rapid-11NONO96°2022
Trisciuzzi et al.Retrospective studyLow41Porous TTACommon Tangent Method and Tibial Plateau Angle Inclination Method-----2019
Villavicencio et al.Prospective studyHigh65Porous TTACommon Tangent Method-----2020
Mendeiros et al.Prospective clinical studyHigh42mTTATransparency-----2016
Morato et al.Prospective studyHigh16mTTA-55---2019
Serrani et al.Retrospective studyLow1mTTA-NONO--94°2022
Zhalniarovich et al.Prospective studyHigh22TTA CFCommon Tangent Method55NONO-2018
Adamiak et al.Case reportVery Low2TTA CFCommon Tangent MethodNONONONO-2018
Zhalniarovich et al.Case reportVery Low1TTA CF------2019
Table
Table 2. The outcome of reviewed papers is divided by surgical technique and time frame.
Table 2. The outcome of reviewed papers is divided by surgical technique and time frame.
AuthorsN. StiflesSurgical TechniqueRecovery AssessmentPerioperative RecoveryRecovery Short-TermRecovery Mid-TermRecovery Long-TermYear
Lorenz et al.1MMPClinical and Radiographical0.00%---2014
Kapler et al.48MMPPL-TPA52.60%---2015
Ness et al.26MMPClinical and Radiographical92.00%-84.70%-2016
Knebel et al.35MMPClinical, Radiographical, and Gait Analysis48.40%77.40%80.60%-2020
Terreros et al.15MMPClinical, Radiographical, and Owners survey76.92%-92.30%-2020
Della Valle et al.35MMPClinical, Radiographical, and Gait Analysis-54.30%--2021
Serrani et al.4MMPClinical and Radiographical0%---2022
Etchepareborde et al.20MMTClinical and Radiographical80.00%100.00%--2011
Ramirez et al.84MMTClinical, Radiographical, and Owners Survey-100.00%-91.00%2015
Marques et al.1MMTClinical100.00%100.00%100.00%-2017
Marques et al.2MMTClinical and Radiographical-100.00%--2017
Lefbvre et al.174MMTRadiographical----2017
Retallack et al.35MMTClinical and Radiographical----2017
De Barros et al.21MMTClinical and Owners Survey--81.00%-2018
Valino-Cultelli et al.24MMTClinical and Radiographical72.20%100.00%--2021
Valino-Cultelli et al.53MMTClinical and Radiographical74.30%97.10%--2021
Serrani et al.1MMTClinical and Radiographical0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2022
Samoy et al.50TTA RapidClinical and Radiographical-96.00%--2015
Arican et al.17TTA RapidClinical and Radiographical82.35%82.35%--2017
Butterworth et al.152TTA RapidClinical, Radiographical, and Owners survey-99.00%97.00%-2017
Dyall et al.48TTA RapidClinical, Radiographical, and Owners survey94.00%-95.30%95.30%2017
Heremans et al.1TTA RapidClinical and Radiographical0.00%100.00%100.00%-2017
Livet et al.13TTA RapidClinical, Radiographical, Gait Analysis, and Owners Survey-100.00%100.00%-2019
Roydev et al.10TTA RapidClinical, Radiographical, Gait Analysis, and ROM70.00%70.00%90.00%100.00%2021
Serrani et al.1TTA RapidClinical and Radiographical0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2022
Trisciuzzi et al.41Porous TTAClinical, Radiographical and Baropodometric score73.00%-100.00%-2019
Villavicencio et al.65Porous TTAClinical and Radiographical87.69%100.00%--2020
Mendeiros et al.42mTTAClinical and Radiographical56.41%95.00%-100.00%2016
Morato et al.16mTTAClinical and Radiographical100.00%100.00%--2019
Serrani et al.1mTTAClinical and Radiographical0.00%0.00%--2022
Zhalniarovich et al.22TTA CFClinical, Radiographical, and Owners Survey100.00%95.45%95.45%95.45%2018
Adamiak et al.2TTA CFClinical and Radiographical100.00%100.00%100.00%-2018
Zhalniarovich et al.1TTA CFClinical and Radiographical0.00%100.00%100.00%-2019
Table
Table 3. Complications are expressed in percentage and in detail for papers included.
Table 3. Complications are expressed in percentage and in detail for papers included.
AuthorsN. StiflesSurgical TechniqueMinor ComplicationsDetailsMajor ComplicationsDetailsYear
Lorenz et al.1MMP--100%Tibial tuberosity fracture (1)2014
Kapler et al.48MMP--6.25%Crest fracture (1); tibial fracture (1); Implant motion (1)2015
Ness et al.26MMP15.40%Cranial displacement of the distal end of the tibial tuberosity (4)7.70%Tibial diaphyseal fractures (2)2016
Knebel et al.35MMP--14.30%Implant removal due to seroma formation (2); implant breakage or loosening (1); tibial fracture (1); wound complications (1)2020
Terreros et al.15MMP60%Incisional redness (4), cortical hinge fractures (6)20.00%Deep (1) and superficial (2) surgical site infections2020
Della Valle et al.35MMP65.70%Cortical hinge fissures (22); Seroma (1)8.57%Surgical site infection (1); tibial tuberosity fracture (2)2021
Serrani et al.4MMP0%-100%Surgical site infection and implant loosening (1); implant complications (1); distal tibial crest fracture (2); 2022
Etchepareborde et al.20MMT5.00%Tibial crest fracture (1)--2011
Ramirez et al.84MMT9.52%Cortical hinge fissures (5); Bandage soares (2), lameness of unknown origin (1)30.95%Cortical hinge fractures (5); cortical hinge fissures (16); fracture of tibial diaphysis (1), wound dehiscence (2), septic arthritis (1); wound secondary to cerclage wire (1)2015
Marques et al.1MMT0.00%-0.00%-2017
Marques et al.2MMT0.00%-100.00%Fissure of tibial crest (1); fracture of tibial crest (1)2017
Lefbvre et al.174MMT39.65%Fissures (56); fractures of cortical hinge and tuberosity (13)9.20%Fissures of cortical hinge (8); Fractures of cortical hinge (6); Fractures tibial shaft (2)2017
Retallack et al.35MMT20.00%Tibial crest fractures (7) 5.71%Surgical site infections (2)2017
De Barros et al.21MMT0.00%-4.76%Seroma (1)2018
Valino-Cultelli et al.24MMT8.33%Fracture of the distal cortical of the tibial crest (1); mass on the incision region (1)12.50%Tension band wiring rupture with or without tibial crest displacement (3)2021
Valino-Cultelli et al.53MMT9.40%Fracture of the distal cortical of the tibial crest (4); mass on the incision region (1)9.40%Tension band wiring rupture with or without tibial crest displacement (4); implant rupture (1)2021
Serrani et al.1MMT0.00%-0.00%-2022
Samoy et al.50TTA Rapid32.00%Thickened patellar ligament (12); fracture of the distal cortex (4)4.00%Tibial crest fractures (2)2015
Arican et al.17TTA Rapid25.00%-23.50%Tibial crest fractures (4)2017
Butterworth et al.152TTA Rapid71.05%Fissures (104); fracture of tibial crest (1); drill bit broke (3); 5.92%Fissures (3); surgical site infections (3); fractures of tibia surgically treated (3)2017
Dyall et al.48TTA Rapid6.25%Fissures (2); mild tissue swelling (1)10.42%Fissures (2); non-displaced tibial fractures (2); incisional infection (1)2017
Heremans et al.1TTA Rapid0.00%-100.00%Fracture of the tibial tuberosity and a fissure of the proximal tibia (1)2017
Livet et al.13TTA Rapid23.08%Distal tibial crest fractures (2); implant loosening (1)23.08%Patellar desmitis (1); implant loosening (1); distal tibial crest fracture (1)2019
Roydev et al.10TTA Rapid20.00%Seroma (1); distal tibial fissure (1)10.00%Avulsion of tibial crest (1)2021
Serrani et al.1TTA Rapid0.00%-0.00%-2022
Trisciuzzi et al.41Porous TTA19.51%Fracture of tibial tuberosity (6); surgical wound dehiscence (2)2.44%Fracture of tibial tuberosity (1)2019
Villavicencio et al.65Porous TTA66.15%distal tibial tuberosity fractures (15), of which 2 with avulsion; distal tibial tuberosity fissures (8), of which 1 with avulsion; lameness after trauma or resting (12); superficial infection (3); implant ruptures (2); dermatitis (2); fissure between screws (1)1.50%Infection and implant removal (1)2020
Mendeiros et al.42mTTA4.76%-9.52%Suture dehiscence and superficial infection (1); screw loosening and tibial tuberosity displacement (1); implant failures (2)2016
Morato et al.16mTTA37.50%Fractures of tibial crest (6)6.25%Surgical site infection (1)2019
Serrani et al.1mTTA0.00%-100.00%Distal tibial crest fractures (1)2022
Zhalniarovich et al.22TTA CF27.00%Fissures through Maquet hole (6)0.00%-2018
Adamiak et al.2TTA CF0.00%-0.00%-2018
Zhalniarovich et al.1TTA CF0.00%-100.00%Tibial crest and diaphysis fracture (1)2019
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aragosa, F.; Caterino, C.; Della Valle, G.; Fatone, G. Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques (TTAT): A Systematic Review. Animals 2022, 12, 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162114

AMA Style

Aragosa F, Caterino C, Della Valle G, Fatone G. Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques (TTAT): A Systematic Review. Animals. 2022; 12(16):2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aragosa, Federica, Chiara Caterino, Giovanni Della Valle, and Gerardo Fatone. 2022. "Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques (TTAT): A Systematic Review" Animals 12, no. 16: 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162114

APA Style

Aragosa, F., Caterino, C., Della Valle, G., & Fatone, G. (2022). Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Techniques (TTAT): A Systematic Review. Animals, 12(16), 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop