search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / JANUARY 2017


41


TABLE 2: Frequencies of the outcomes (survival to hospital discharge, long-term survival, long-term sound and returned to intended use, recurrence of coronation injury, increased post- injury stumbling) in 138 horses treated for coronation injury


Outcome Total horses


Subjected to euthanasia whilst hospitalised


Poor response to treatment of synovial sepsis (n = 1), wobbler (n = 1), financial constraints (n = 1)


Survived to hospital discharge


Lost to follow-up


Long-term follow-up on: Total long-term mortality


Coronation specific mortality


Carpal joint arthrosis (n = 1), increased post-injury stumbling (n = 2), wound healing


complications (n = 2), recurrence (n = 1)


Mortality unrelated to injury


Survived long term


Sound, return to intended use


Lame, no return to intended use


Recurrence of coronation


Increased post-injury stumbling


32/83 (38.6%)


45/83 (54.2%) 70/80 (87.5%)


10/80 (12.5%) 7/80 (8.8%) 16/80 (20%) Reason


Number of horses


138 3/138 (2.2%)


TABLE 3: Effect of risk factors on hospitalisation time in horses (n = 138) with coronation injuries


Effect on hospitalisation time


Extensor tendon involvement


Carpal joint involvement


Duration of implanted drain


Complication: skin necrosis


135/138 (97.8%)


57/138 (41.3%) 83/138 (60.1%) 38/83 (45.8%) 6/83 (7.2%)


Complication: local infection Intercept*


Coefficient 4.21


3.84 1.06 9.49 3.19 8.62


Standard error


1.45 1.39 0.27 3.33 1.12 1.02


95% confidence interval


1.34–7.08 1.1–6.58 0.53–1.59


P-value 0.004


0.006 ≤0.001 2.9–16.08 0.005 0.96–5.40 6.60–10.65 0.005 ≤0.001


* Intercept is the value at which the fitted line crosses the y-axis, hence it informs about the model fitting, but is meaningless for the interpretation of the risk factors.


created distally to the wound (with drain in place and without), horses had a greatly increased chance of survival to discharge compared with horses without a drainage hole (OR 43:1, 95% CI 3.4–543.1; P≤0.004). Horses with bilateral coronation injury had 6.4 times the odds of increased post- injury stumbling compared to horses sustaining unilateral injuries (95% CI 1.3–30.3; P = 0.02) and horses which received intraarticular antimicrobial treatment had 7.5 times the odds of increased post-injury stumbling (95% CI 1.9–29.2; P = 0.04) compared with horses without intra-articular treatment administration. After stratifying breed into the four categories: Warmbloods, Arabians, Thoroughbreds and others; Arabian horses had 9 times the odds of having been subjected to euthanasia due to the coronation injury after hospital discharge compared with Warmbloods (95% CI 1.3–62.6; P = 0.026). Further, for every extra day with an implanted drain, the odds of a horse being subjected to euthanasia due to the coronation injury after hospital discharge increased 2-fold (OR 2, 1.2–3.5, P = 0.012).


to a local wound infection and the formation of exuberant granulation tissue. Both owners decided to subject their horses to euthanasia due to the complications. These two horses were included in Outcome 3 (long-term coronation specific mortality). The long-term coronation specific mortality risk was 7.2%, hence (6/83) of the horses were subjected to euthanasia related to the coronation injury (reasons for euthanasia are shown in Table 2). Follow-up time for the long-


term coronation specific mortality was 7.8 months  5 years (range 0.5 months to 18.9 years); 60.1% (n = 83) of the owners were reached for the telephone interview after a mean


duration of 8.1  4.9 years (range 8 months to 18.9 years). Information on the soundness status was available for 80 horses; 87.5% (n = 70) were sound and had returned to their intended use whereas the remaining horses (n = 10) were lame and had not returned to their intended use.


Univariable analysis The univariable analysis identified the following exposure variables to be significantly associated with the subsequent short-term and long-term outcomes. If a drainage hole was


Multivariable analysis Multivariable analyses for the Outcomes 2 (hospitalisation time; n = 138), 3 (long-term coronation specific mortality; n with outcome/n study population = 6/83), 4 (sound and return to intended use; 70/80) and 5 (increased post-injury stumbling; 16/80) were conducted. Since only three horses were subjected to euthanasia whilst hospitalised, associations with Outcome 1 (survival to discharge) were not conducted due to data sparsity with multivariable analyses, especially since one horse was subjected to euthanasia due to financial constraints, meaning that there were 2 horses left to assess an association with potential risk factors. Hospitalisation time was statistically significantly associated


with the exposure variables listed in Table 3 in the multiple linear regression model with an adjusted r2 of 0.32 (Model 2). One observation had to be dropped due to missing values and two because of high leverage and residuals. Mean hospitalisation time was increased for horses with extensor tendon involvement by 4.2 days (95% CI 1.3–7.0, P = 0.004), for horses with carpal joint involvement by 3.8 days (95% CI 1.1– 6.6, P = 0.006), for horses suffering from skin necrosis by 9.5 days (95% CI 2.9–16.1, P = 0.005) and those suffering from local


© 2016 EVJ Ltd


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72