{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03397683397683398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007722007722007722, 'mean_word_length': 4.837837837837838, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Acrylic and Epoxy-pin External Skeletal Fixation Systems for Fracture Management in Dogs

Background: The metallic ESF systems are not easily available in the field and have fixed frames leading to less versatility in size and direction. Free forms of external skeletal fixators (acrylic and epoxy-pin) have advantages as they can be customized. Both acrylic and epoxy-pin ESF systems have been evaluated biomechanically in earlier studies; in the present study both are compared clinically.Methods: Twenty four dogs presented with 27 fractures of long bones, were randomly divided into 4 groups, according to the bones involved, group A was divided into A-I (radius-ulna) and A-II (tibia-fibula) sub-groups and group B was divided into B-I (radius-ulna) and B-II (tibia-fibula) sub-groups.Result: The mean ± SE fracture healing time in animals was 48.85 ± 2.56 days with no significant difference between two groups.The early presented cases and the ones with less soft tissue trauma showed better gait scores during the follow up period. Both acrylic and epoxy-pin fixators provided stable fixation and the technique can be practiced at field conditions with minimal facilities. Epoxy-pin ESF owing to better handling characteristics of epoxy resin is easier to construct than the acrylic ESF.