← Articles

Johnson et al: Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial
Veterinary Surgery 8, 2022

🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 2 of 10 PET implants were fully intact and functional at 6 months post-op.
  • Owner-reported function (LOAD scores) improved by 51.7% (p = .008) over 6 months.
  • Gait asymmetry improved by 86% (p = .002) postoperatively.
  • Implant failure occurred in the midbody of the PET device, suggesting fatigue as a failure mechanism.
  • One dog (10%) developed implant infection, necessitating implant removal.
  • Implant fixation method (screws + washers + interference screw) was mechanically adequate and technically simple.
  • Partially intact implants (4/10) still showed improved clinical outcomes, despite structural compromise.
  • Midbody tearing and lack of long-term integrity prohibit continued use of this PET implant in CCL repair.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Johnson et al: Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial
Veterinary Surgery 8, 2022

🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 2 of 10 PET implants were fully intact and functional at 6 months post-op.
  • Owner-reported function (LOAD scores) improved by 51.7% (p = .008) over 6 months.
  • Gait asymmetry improved by 86% (p = .002) postoperatively.
  • Implant failure occurred in the midbody of the PET device, suggesting fatigue as a failure mechanism.
  • One dog (10%) developed implant infection, necessitating implant removal.
  • Implant fixation method (screws + washers + interference screw) was mechanically adequate and technically simple.
  • Partially intact implants (4/10) still showed improved clinical outcomes, despite structural compromise.
  • Midbody tearing and lack of long-term integrity prohibit continued use of this PET implant in CCL repair.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, what percentage of implants remained fully intact and functional at 6 months postoperatively?

A. 10%
B. 20%
C. 40%
D. 60%
E. 80%

Answer: 10%

Explanation: Only 2 out of 10 implants were found fully intact and functional at 6 months, representing a 10% success rate.
In Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, what was the most common site of failure identified in torn implants?

A. Femoral tunnel
B. Tibial tunnel
C. Screw fixation interface
D. Midbody of the implant
E. Soft tissue anchor

Answer: Midbody of the implant

Explanation: Midbody tears were identified arthroscopically in all failed implants, suggesting fatigue failure.
In Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, which of the following outcome measures showed statistically significant improvement after surgery?

A. LOAD score only
B. Gait asymmetry only
C. LOAD score and gait asymmetry
D. Implant survival only
E. None

Answer: LOAD score and gait asymmetry

Explanation: Both owner-reported LOAD scores and limb asymmetry improved significantly (p = .008 and p = .002, respectively).
In Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, what was a key limitation cited that precluded further investigation of this implant?

A. Inadequate mechanical strength
B. High infection rate
C. Poor owner compliance
D. High rate of implant failure
E. Complicated surgical technique

Answer: High rate of implant failure

Explanation: With 8 out of 10 implants either partially torn or fully failed, survivability was deemed too low for continued study.
In Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, what fixation method was used for securing the implant to bone?

A. Bone cement and staples
B. Bone plates with sutures
C. Bi-cortical screws, spiked washers, and absorbable interference screws
D. Interlocking pins with sutures
E. Suture anchors and bone tunnels

Answer: Bi-cortical screws, spiked washers, and absorbable interference screws

Explanation: This method was chosen for simplicity, adequate fixation, and prior validation in ex vivo testing.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Kang

 et al: 

Accuracy of a 3‐dimensionally printed custom endoscopy port for minimally invasive ventral slot decompression in dogs: A cadaveric study

Banks

 et al: 

A mismatch of planning and achieved tibial plateau angle in cranial closing wedge surgery: An in silico and clinical evaluation of 100 cases

Deprey

 et al: 

Mechanical evaluation of a novel angle‐stable interlocking nail in a gap fracture model

Tani

 et al: 

Reconstruction of the flexor carpi ulnaris tendon with a fascia lata autograft in two dogs with carpal hyperextension

Sadowitz

 et al: 

Effect of screw insertion angle and speed on the incidence of transcortical fracture development in a canine tibial diaphyseal model