Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Caleb C. Hudson x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search



To describe the anatomic structures of the canine middle ear visible during endoscopic examination through ventral and lateral surgical approaches.


5 cadaveric canine heads representing 4 breeds.


A descriptive study was performed. For each head, a lateral approach was performed on one side and a ventral approach was performed on the opposite side. Images were obtained with a 2.7-mm, 30° telescope.


Captured images were reviewed, and anatomic structures visualized through the lateral and ventral approaches were identified. The optimal approach, telescope position, and light post orientation to identify each anatomic structure were subjectively determined.


Middle ear evaluation with a telescope was technically straightforward and allowed identification of middle ear structures not typically visible with an open surgical approach. Findings may serve as an anatomic reference guide for future video-assisted surgical procedures of the middle ear. A better understanding of the location of anatomic structures in the middle ear may help to prevent unnecessary damage to fragile middle ear structures, such as nerves or blood vessels, during surgical procedures.

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association


Objective—To determine mechanical properties of various prosthetic materials secured to cadaveric canine femurs via various methods and to compare results with those for isolated loops of prosthetic material.

Sample—80 femurs obtained from cadavers of skeletally mature large-breed dogs.

Procedures—10 femoral constructs in each of 8 groups (single circumfabellar loop of polyethylene cord, double loop of polyethylene tape secured via a bone anchor [BAPT], single or double circumfabellar loops of nylon leader material [CNL] or polyethylene tape [CPT], or single or double loops of polyethylene tape secured via a toggle placed through a bone tunnel [BTPT]) and 10 isolated loops of prosthetic material in each corresponding configuration were tested. Stress relaxation, creep, elongation, load at 3 mm of displacement, stiffness, and peak load at failure were determined.

Results—5 single CNL constructs failed before completion of testing. Double CNL and single circumfabellar polyethylene cord constructs had the lowest loads at 3 mm of displacement. Single and double CPT constructs had the highest stiffness. Double BTPT and CPT constructs had the highest peak loads at failure. Double BTPT, double CPT, and BAPT constructs were mechanically superior on the basis of lower creep and stress relaxation and higher stiffness and load at 3 mm of displacement versus other constructs. Stiffness of femoral constructs was 28% to 69% that of corresponding isolated prosthetic loops.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Double BTPT, double CPT, and BAPT constructs were mechanically superior to other constucts. Mechanical properties and methods of anchorage and securing of free ends of prostheses contributed to mechanical properties of constructs.

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research


Objective—To compare the axial stiffness, maximum axial displacement, and ring deformation during axial loading of single complete and incomplete circular (ring) external skeletal fixator constructs.

Sample—32 groups of single ring constructs (5 constructs/group).

Procedures—Single ring constructs assembled with 2 divergent 1.6-mm-diameter Kirschner wires were used to stabilize a 60-mm-long segment of 16-mm-diameter acetyl resin rod. Construct variables included ring type (complete or incomplete), ring diameter (50, 66, 84, or 118 mm), and fixation wire tension (0, 30, 60, or 90 kg). Axial loading was performed with a materials testing system. Construct secant stiffness and maximum displacement were calculated from the load-displacement curves generated for each construct. Ring deformation was calculated by comparing ring diameter during and after construct loading to ring diameter prior to testing.

Results—Complete ring constructs had greater axial stiffness than did the 66-, 84-, and 118-mm-diameter incomplete ring constructs. As fixation wire tension increased, construct stiffness increased in the 66-, 84-, and 118-mm-diameter incomplete ring constructs. Maximum axial displacement decreased with increasing fixation wire tension, and complete ring constructs allowed less displacement than did incomplete ring constructs. Incomplete rings were deformed by wire tensioning and construct loading.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Mechanical performance of the 66-, 84-, and 118-mm-diameter incomplete ring constructs improved when wire tension was applied, but these constructs were not as stiff as and allowed greater displacement than did complete ring constructs of comparable diameter. For clinical practice, tensioning the wires placed on 84- and 118-mm-diameter incomplete rings to 60 kg is recommended.

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research