To compare heat generation and mechanical bone damage achieved with 2 tapered and 1 cylindrical transfixation pin taps in third metacarpal bones from equine cadavers.
18 pairs (36 specimens) of third metacarpal bones from euthanized horses with no known metacarpal disease.
In each bone, an investigator drilled 3 holes for placement of a 6.3-mm cylindrical transfixation pin, a 6.3-mm tapered pin using a prototype tapered tap, and a 6.3-mm tapered pin using a revised tapered tap. One bone of each pair was tapped by hand and the other with an electric drill. Temperatures of the drill bits, reamers, and taps were measured and used to compare heat generation among tap groups and tapping methods (hand vs power tapping). Macrodamage (all bone pairs) and microdamage (6 bone pairs) were assessed.
The revised tapered tap resulted in less heat generation and less total thread microdamage, compared with the prototype tapered and cylindrical taps. Power tapping created less bone damage but higher temperatures than did hand tapping for all bone groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The revised tap design for tapered pin insertion was superior to the prototype tap design and yielded similar or less bone damage than achieved with cylindrical pin insertion in equine third metacarpal bone specimens. We recommend careful hand tapping for tapered pin insertion rather than power tapping, which generated greater heat. The revised tapered tap could be expected to perform better than a cylindrical pin tap in terms of thermal and mechanical microdamage and should be used for insertion of tapered transfixation pins.
Recent state and federal legislative actions and current recommendations from the World Health Organization seem to suggest that, when it comes to antimicrobial stewardship, use of antimicrobials for prevention, control, or treatment of disease can be ranked in order of appropriateness, which in turn has led, in some instances, to attempts to limit or specifically oppose the routine use of medically important antimicrobials for prevention of disease. In contrast, the AVMA Committee on Antimicrobials believes that attempts to evaluate the degree of antimicrobial stewardship on the basis of therapeutic intent are misguided and that use of antimicrobials for prevention, control, or treatment of disease may comply with the principles of antimicrobial stewardship. It is important that veterinarians and animal caretakers are clear about the reason they may be administering antimicrobials to animals in their care. Concise definitions of prevention, control, and treatment of individuals and populations are necessary to avoid confusion and to help veterinarians clearly communicate their intentions when prescribing or recommending antimicrobial use.