Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2025 Aug 25;49(5):287. doi: 10.1007/s11259-025-10859-w

Nerve palpation to reduce the risk of ulnar nerve injury associated with caudo-medial arthroscopic portal creation in the canine elbow – a cadaveric study

Piotr Trębacz 1,✉, Jan Frymus 1, Michał Czopowicz 2, Mateusz Pawlik 4, Anna Barteczko 3, Aleksandra Kurkowska 4
PMCID: PMC12378507  PMID: 40853576

Abstract

The medial portal is the most common type of optical portal used in canine elbow arthroscopy. The caudo-medial arthroscopic portal can be used to improve visualization of humeral condylar lesions and medial coronoid process pathologies, as well as for more accurate identification of the humeral intercondylar fissure. However, due to the proximity of the nerve, caution must be exercised when creating this portal. This study investigated whether the risk of ulnar nerve injury associated with caudo-medial arthroscopic portal placement in canine cadavers could be reduced by palpating the ulnar nerve before creating the portal for the arthroscope, as is done in human elbow arthroscopy. Twenty-six canine cadavers were enrolled in the study: 15 males and 11 females, weighing between 12 and 41 kg. In the 26 dogs (52 elbows) in which ulnar nerve palpation was performed, the distance between the nerve and the arthroscopic sheath ranged from 0 to 10.8 mm. Overall, ulnar nerve injury was observed in 4 / 26 dogs (15%, CI 95%: 6%, 34%): in the left elbow of one dog and in the right elbows of three dogs. Comparison with previous studies indicated that implementing palpation of the ulnar nerve before creating the portal for the arthroscope reduced the risk of ulnar nerve injury threefold, from approximately 50% to approximately 15%. Conclusions: Following palpation and identification, the incidence of ulnar nerve injury is low.

Keywords: Dog, Arthroscopy, Alternative arthroscopic portal

The medial portal is the most common type of t arthroscopic portal in canine elbow arthroscopy (Van Ryssen et al. 1993; McCarthy 2021). The craniolateral portal is not commonly used (Vernier et al. 2024; Shelter et al. 2022). A variation of the medial portal, the caudo-medial portal, can be used to improve visualization of certain elbow lesions (Danielski and Yeadon 2022; Danielski et al. 2023). .

Moving the arthroscopic portal away from the instrument portal may improve operating conditions. However, to create the caudo-medial arthroscopic portal, the arthroscope must be inserted close to the ulnar nerve. In our previous study on canine cadavers (Trębacz et al. 2025), we investigated the risk of ulnar nerve injury following caudo-medial portal placement using anatomical landmarks only. The arthroscopic sheath was inserted between the most prominent parts of the humerus medial epicondyle and the olecranon. Nerve injury or high risk of injury was observed in 70% of the dogs, with approximately 50% of dogs with direct ulnar nerve injury (Trębacz et al. 2025). Therefore, in the present study on canine cadavers, we decided to investigate if the risk of ulnar nerve injury associated with the caudo-medial arthroscopic portal placement may be reduced by ulnar nerve palpation before creating the portal for the arthroscope, as it is mentioned in human elbow arthroscopy (Robinson 2020). In the epidemiological analysis, we used the data of 30 dogs from our previous study in which the ulnar nerve was not palpated before the arthroscopy (Trębacz et al. 2025) as a historical unexposed (non-palpation) group.

Materials and methods

The study enrolled 26 canine cadavers (15 males and 11 females weighing from 12 to 41 kg). Dogs were euthanized for reasons unrelated to this study. Immediately after euthanasia, cadavers were frozen at −20 °C. A day before the arthroscopic procedure, they were taken out of the freezer and placed at room temperature for thawing. According to the Polish legislation, ethics approval was not required (Act of the Polish Parliament of 15 January 2015 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific or Educational Purposes, Journal of Laws 2015, item 266) (Rakoczy 2016).

Each cadaver was placed in lateral recumbency, on the operated side. The elbow was prepared, and an arthroscopic procedure was carried out in the same way and by the same surgeon (PT) as described in Trębacz et al. (2025), with the ulnar nerve palpation preceding creation of the portal for the arthroscope as the only modification. The hair over the elbow joint was clipped.”, and the skin thoroughly cleaned. The table’s margin was used as a fulcrum to open the elbow joint. The ulnar nerve was palpated with the index finger caudal to the medial humeral epicondyle. Then, the hypodermic needle was inserted into the joint between the nerve and the olecranon. The joint was punctured using a “one needle, two syringes” technique. Once the needle was believed to be positioned within the joint space, the syringe was aspirated to assess the presence of synovial fluid. The syringe was removed from the needle hub, and the joint was filled with sterile 0.9% saline. The arthroscopic sheath with the blunt obturator for the 1.9 mm arthroscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) was inserted in the same direction as the needle. The free flow of the fluid from the sheath was considered as proof of the proper insertion of the arthroscopic sheath. Then, with the arthroscopic sheath in place, a longitudinal incision of the skin and subcutaneous tissue was made along the palpable indentation line between the cranial border of the triceps muscle and the caudal aspect of the medial humeral epicondyle. After exposure of the ulnar nerve, the distance between the sheath and the ulnar nerve was measured using an electronic caliper (Engindot, Shenzhen, China) with a precision of 0.01 mm. The measurements were recorded in millimeters and rounded to one decimal place. The ulnar nerve injury was diagnosed when the arthroscopic sheath was visibly penetrated.

Statistical methods:

Numerical variables (age, distance between the ulnar nerve and the arthroscopic sheath) were summarized as the median, interquartile range (IQR), and range. The distance between the ulnar nerve and the arthroscopic sheath was compared between elbows using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Categorical variables (sex, breed, the incidence of ulnar nerve injury) were expressed as the count (n) and proportion (%). The 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) for proportions were calculated using the Wilson score method (Altman et al. 2000). Groups (palpation vs. non-palpation [historical group from Trębacz et al. 2025]) were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test (numerical variables) or the maximum likelihood G test (categorical variables). Variables which differed between the palpation and non-palpation group with a P-value < 0.1 were entered into the multivariable logistic regression to investigate palpation’s independent role in reducing the incidence of ulnar nerve injury. Goodness-of-fit of the logistic model was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow χ² test and Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2 coefficient (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). All tests were two-sided and a significance level (α) was set at 0.05. The magnitude of the preventive effect of the ulnar nerve palpation was determined as the absolute risk reduction (ARR; difference in the incidence of ulnar nerve injury between groups), relative risk (RR, palpation to non-palpation ratio of incidence of ulnar nerve injury), prevented fraction (PF; relative risk reduction i.e. proportion of incidents in the non-palpation group that could have been prevented by palpation; PF = 1-RR), and the number needed to treat (NNT, number of dogs in which ulnar nerve palpation had to be done to prevent the injury in one of them; NNT = 1/ARR) (Altman et al. 2000; Thrusfield 2018). Statistical analysis was performed in TIBCO Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).

Results

In 26 dogs, the distance between the ulnar nerve and the arthroscopic sheath ranged from 0 to 10.8 mm, and it did not differ significantly between the left (median: 3.6 mm, IQR: 0–6.2 mm) and right elbow (median: 4.1 mm, IQR: 2.8–5.7 mm; P = 0.784). In total, the ulnar nerve was injured in 4/26 dogs (15%; CI 95%: 6%, 34%) – in the left elbow of 1 dog, and in the right elbows of 3 dogs.

When dogs from this and the previous study (Trębacz et al. 2025) were analyzed together, 20 dogs with ulnar nerve injury (16 from the previous study and 4 from this study) showed some tendency towards having lower body weight (median: 21 kg, IQR: 17–24 kg) compared to 36 dogs (14 from the previous study and 22 from this study) in which the ulnar nerve injury did not occur (median: 23 kg, IQR: 19–33 kg; P = 0.098). Moreover, compared to 30 dogs from the historical non-palpation group (Trębacz et al. 2025), 26 dogs in this study were significantly heavier (P = 0.003) (Table 1). Therefore, the body weight was considered a potential confounding factor in the assessment of the effect of ulnar nerve palpation on the incidence of ulnar nerve injury.

Table 1.

Characteristics of dogs whose cadavers underwent elbow joint arthroscopy, accompanied or not by the ulnar nerve palpation

Variable Group
Palpation (n = 26) Non-palpation (n = 30) a P-value
Body weight [kg] b 29, 19–34 (12–41) 20, 17–24 (10–30) 0.003
Male sex c 15/26 (58%) 15/30 (50%) 0.565
Pedigree dogs c 15/26 (58%) 15/30 (50%) 0.565
Distance between the arthroscopic sheath and ulnar nerve [mm]: b
Left elbow 3.6, 0–6.2 (0–8.4) 0.5, 0–3.7 (0–8.0) 0.026
Right elbow 4.1, 2.8–5.7 (0–10.8) 0.2, 0–2.7 (0–5.0) < 0.001
Incidence of ulnar nerve injury c

4/26

15% (CI 95%: 6%, 34%)

16/30

53% (CI 95%: 36%, 70%)

 0.003
Open in a new tab

a group of dogs described in the previous study of Trębacz et al. (2025)

b expressed as the median, interquartile range and range, and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test

c expressed as the count and proportion, and compared using the maximum likelihood G test

Compared to 30 dogs from the historical non-palpation group, the distance between the arthroscopic sheath and ulnar nerve was significantly higher in 26 dogs from the palpation group, meaning they suffered from ulnar nerve injury less often (P = 0.003). Controlled for body weight, the ulnar nerve palpation was significantly associated with a lower risk of injury (P = 0.019). The risk of ulnar nerve injury was by 38% lower (CI 95%: 13%, 57%) in the palpation group (ARR) and approximately 3 times lower (RR = 0.29; CI 95%: 0.11, 0.75) than in the non-palpation group. In approximately 70% of non-palpation group dogs with ulnar nerve injury, palpation could have prevented the incident (PF = 0.71). Palpation had to be performed in 2–3 dogs to prevent ulnar nerve injury in one dog (NNT = 2.6; CI 95%: 1.9, 6.5) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Multivariable analysis of the role of palpation in reducing the risk of ulnar nerve injury controlled for the body weight

Variables Regression coefficient (standard error) Wald’s statistic P-value Odds ratio (CI 95%)
Intercept 0.59 (1.02) – – –
Palpation −1.68 (0.72) 5.48 0.019 0.19 (0.05, 0.76)
Body weight −0.02 (0.05) 0.23 0.633 0.98 (0.89, 1.07)
Open in a new tab

Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 test: χ2 = 4.39, p = 0.820; Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2 coefficient = 0.213

Discussion

To prevent injury to the ulnar nerve, its location must be identified before the caudomedial portal is placed. To minimize the risk of ulnar nerve injury in humans, the nerve can be identified using palpation, arthroscopy, or ultrasound (Hilgersom et al. 2018; Kamineni and Hamilton 2012; Ohuchi et al. 2017). Our study shows that palpating the ulnar nerve before creating the portal for the arthroscope significantly reduces the risk of injury to the nerve associated with caudomedial arthroscopic portal placement in dogs. Implementing this procedure reduces the risk threefold-, by around three times, decreasing it from approximately 50% to 15%.

The veterinary literature lacks information about ulnar nerve protection during elbow arthroscopy. Only Jardel et al. (2010) recommended palpating the ulnar nerve before canine elbow arthroscopy and maintaining the limb position while puncturing the joint. In our study ulnar nerve damage still occurred despite the incidence decreasing after palpation. Although palpation is an easy method of identifying the nerve, the accuracy of this method depends on various factors and can produce inconsistent results. These factors include the surgeon’s experience, the condition of the soft tissue around the elbow, and oedema that may occur in the soft tissue following joint irrigation. (Hilgersom et al. 2018).

Neurological injuries are the most common complication of human arthroscopy, which discourages many surgeons from performing elbow arthroscopy even when it should be considered necessary and highly likely beneficial for the patient. Arthroscopic procedures are less extensive than open ones due to an inability to eliminate the risk of nerve and blood vessel injury (Unlu et al. 2006). The ulnar nerve is positioned caudomedially in the caudal compartment, which is the main reason for the limitations of arthroscopic practice (Kaminei and Hamilton 2012; Robinson 2020). Direct trauma is one of the most common causes of ulnar nerve injury. This can occur during portal placement or when instruments are manipulated within the joint (Ohuchi et al. 2017). In cases where there is a higher risk of nerve injury (e.g., elbow stiffness or ulnar nerve compression), the nerve can be identified after the skin is incised in the caudomedial compartment of the elbow. Then, the nerve is released and protected during insertion of the arthroscopic sleeve (Temporin et al. 2019).

In humans, ultrasound-assisted portal placement has become essential for identifying the position of the ulnar nerve adjacent to the prospective portal site effectively and safely, and for providing real-time imaging of the nerve during portal placement (Robinson 2020). The ultrasound identification of the ulnar nerve in dogs has been described in the context of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (Portela et al. 2013; Iizuka et al. 2023). The ultrasound-assisted portal placement near the ulnar nerve may be a valuable alternative in dogs, but there is a lack of veterinary literature on this topic.

In humans, the dysfunction of the ulnar nerve manifests primarily as diminished wrist flexion and hyperextension of the metacarpophalangeal joints, which results in a claw hand. The characteristics of ulnar nerve sensory dysfunction mainly include sensory loss, numbness, and tingling in the ulnar nerve distribution area (such as the ulnar side of the ring and little fingers) (Mezian et al. 2021). A thorough lameness examination in a dog can help to distinguish between orthopedic and neurological disorders. Despite a thorough case history, general clinical, orthopedic, and neurological examinations, this differentiation can still be challenging. The ulnar nerve in dogs, located below the elbow, works with other nerves to provide muscular branches to the carpal ulnar flexor, deep and superficial digital flexors, and the interosseus muscle. The ulnar nerve’s autonomous zone is the skin over the lateral aspect of the fifth digit (Jacewicz et al. 2025). Such innervation can result in an absence of clinical signs of lameness or limb paralysis even following ulnar nerve neurectomy (Basa et al. 2018; Salmina et al. 2022). This is because undisturbed nerve function elsewhere (e.g. in the radial nerve) can compensate for the neurological deficits caused by ulnar nerve damage (Basa et al. 2018). For this reason, post-arthroscopic ulnar nerve injuries can also be difficult to detect clinically. The lack of clinical manifestation of post-arthroscopic ulnar nerve injury may explain the limited interest in identifying and protecting this nerve in veterinary medicine. This study has a few limitations. One potential limitation is the use of a historical non-palpated group to determine the baseline risk of ulnar nerve injury. We opted for historical data from our previous study (Trębacz et al. 2025) as it met all the criteria set out by Pocock (1976) for historical control groups. Specifically, all procedures were performed on cadavers in both the current and previous studies, with palpation of the ulnar nerve being the only difference. Furthermore, arthroscopy was performed by the same surgeon examiners using the same equipment in both studies, which eliminates most potential variability between groups. Therefore, we believe that the risk of introducing bias by using data from a previous study was negligible. Obviously, the groups consisted of different dogs, so we paid close attention to controlling for potential confounding factors. We therefore compared the characteristics of the cadavers available, namely sex, body weight and pedigree status, between the groups (i.e. between the current study population and the population studied by Trębacz et al. 2025). Including pedigree status aimed to account for variability potentially associated with different breed distributions between groups. Clearly, there is no literature to suggest that a dog’s sex or pedigree status could influence the risk of ulnar nerve injury. However, as very little attention has been given to the issue of arthroscopy-related ulnar nerve injury thus far, we decided it would be better to eliminate any potential sources of variability and confounding factors to ensure the comparisons were as reliable as possible.

Another obvious limitation is the use of thawed cadavers. The freezing and thawing processes can compromise the integrity of soft tissues. However, Bell et al. (2020) found that human knee and shoulder tissue specimens from cadavers could be refrozen and used up to three times each without significant degradation of the critical tissues needed for arthroscopic simulation. While notable changes were observed in the surrounding muscle and subcutaneous tissue when examined by ultrasound, the appearance of the capsule and intra-articular structures remained unchanged. Similar changes can be observed in thawed canine tissue specimens, suggesting that the incidence of ulnar nerve damage may be due to soft tissue alterations not present in live animals.

The final limitation is the absence of a comparison between procedures performed by different surgeons. The first author of this study (PT) has extensive experience in performing canine elbow arthroscopies. The preferred arthroscopic portal is medial. The caudomedial portal is used when a humeral intracondylar fissure is suspected or when the medial coronoid process fragment is large. This allows for better visualization and easier triangulation between the arthroscope and instruments (Lehman and Lehman 2004). However, injury to the ulnar nerve is still possible due to the proximity of the caudomedial portal to the nerve, regardless of the surgeon’s experience. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate whether palpating the ulnar nerve could facilitate the placement of the caudomedial arthroscopic portal. The influence of the surgeon’s experience is another valuable subject for future research. Conclusions.

Palpating the ulnar nerve before inserting the arthroscopic sheath significantly reduced the incidence of ulnar nerve injury.

Author contributions

P.T. prepared cadavers, performed arthroscopies and wrote the main manuscript, J.F. prepared cadavers and revised the manuscript, M.C. prepared the statistical analysis and revised the manuscript, M.P., A.B., and A.K. revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

No funding.

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.

Declarations

Animal ethics

Approval from research ethics committees was not required to achieve the aims of this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T et al (2000) Statistics with confidence, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, Bristol, UK
  2. Basa RM, Crowley AM, Johnson KA (2018) Neurofibroma of the ulnar nerve in the carpal canal in a dog: treatment by marginal neurectomy. J Small Anim Pract 61:512–515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell CD, O’Sullivan JG, Ostervos TE, Cameron WE, Petering RC, Brady JM (2020) Surgical simulation maximizing the use of fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens: examination of tissue integrity using ultrasound. J Grad Med Educ. 10.4300/JGME-D-19-00553.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Danielski A, Reinaldos IQ, Solano MA, Fatone G (2023) Influence of oblique proximal ulnar osteotomy on humeral intracondylar fissure in 35 spaniel breed dogs. Vet Surg 53:287–301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Danielski A, Yeadon R (2022) Humero-anconeal elbow incongruity in spaniel breed dogs with humeral intercondylar fissure: arthroscopic findings. Vet Surg 51:117–124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hilgersom NFJ, Cucchi D, Luceri F, van den Bekerom MPJ, Oh LS, Arrigoni P, Eygendaal D (2018) ESSKA elbow and wrist study collaborative. Locating the ulnar nerve during elbow arthroscopy using palpation is only accurate proximal to the medial epicondyle. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3254–3260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Hobocken, USA
  8. Iizuka T, Anazawa T, Nishimura R, Wakata T, Furukawa T, Shiotsuki A, Okadaa Y, Kojima K, Ono K, Hirao H (2023) Fentanyl sparing effect of ultrasound guided proximal radial, ulnar, median, and musculocutaneous nerve (RUMM) block for radial and ulnar fracture repair in dogs: a retrospective case-control study. J Vet Med Sci 85:49–54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jacewicz J, Sienkiewicz W, Burzykowski T, Degórska B (2025) Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints. PLoS One 20:e0316379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jardel N, Crevier-Denoix N, Moissonier P, Viateau V (2010) Anatomical and safety considerations in establishing portals used for canine elbow arthroscopy. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 23:75–80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kamineni S, Hamilton DA Jr. (2012) Arthroscopic ulnar nerve identification during posterior elbow arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech 1(1):e113–e117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lehman M, Lehman K (2004) Modification of the triangulation technique for arthroscopy of the canine shoulder joint using a new target device. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 17:1–8 [Google Scholar]
  13. McCarthy TC (2021) Patient preparation, positioning, and operating room setup. Veterinary arthroscopy for the small animal practitioner. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, p 24 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mezian K, Jacisko J, Kaiser R, Machac S, Steyerova P, Sobotova K, Angerova Y, Nanka O (2021) Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: from ultrasound scanning to treatment. Front Neurol 12:661441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ohuchi H, Torres RJL, Shinga K, Ichikawa K, Kato Y, Hattori S, Yamada S (2017) Ultrasound-assisted posteromedial portal placement of the elbow joint to prevent ulnar nerve injury. Arthrosc Tech 6:1087–1091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pocock SJ (1976) The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 29(3):175–188. 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90044-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Portela DA, Raschi A, Otero PE (2013) Ultrasound-guided mid-humeral block of the radial, ulnar, median and musculocutaneous (RUMM block) nerves in a dog with traumatic exposed metacarpal luxation. Vet Anaesth Analg 40:551–556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rakoczy B (2016) Act on the protection of animals used for scientific or educational purposes-legal regulation review. Pol Yearb Environ Law 5:79–88 [Google Scholar]
  19. Robinson PM (2020) Advances and future trends in elbow arthroscopy. J Arthro Surg Sport Med 1:32–43 [Google Scholar]
  20. Salmina AG, Castelli E, Beckmann K, Mauri N (2022) Challenges in diagnosing a peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the ulnar nerve in a dog – a case report. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 164(3):265–271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Shetler SE, Verpaalen VD, Hinson WD, De Lombaert M, Belhorn SA, Giglio RF (2022) The use of lateral arthroscopy portals for the management of bilateral osteochondritis dissecans of the radial head in an english Bulldog. Vet Surg 51:1287–1294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Temporin K, Shimada K, Ourak K, Owaki H (2019) Arthroscopic release for the severely stiff elbow. Musculoskelet Surg 104(4). 10.1007/s12306-019-00601-6 [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Thrusfield M (2018) Veterinary epidemiology, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK
  24. Trębacz P, Frymus J, Pawlik M, Barteczko A, Kurkowska A, Berczyńska J, Czopowicz M (2025) Risk of ulnar nerve injury following caudo-medial arthroscopic portal creation in the canine elbow-a cadaveric study. Animals 15(4):543. 10.3390/ani15040543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Unlu MC, Kesmezacar H, Akgun I, Ogut T, Uzun I (2006) Anatomic relationship between elbow arthroscopy portals and neurovascular structures in different elbow and forearm positions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:457–462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Ryssen B, Van Bree H, Simoens P (1993) Elbow arthroscopy in clinically normal dogs. Am J Vet Res 54:191–198 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Vernier TH, Verpaalen VD, Hinson WD, Belhorn SA (2024) The use of lateral arthroscopy portals for the management of a fragmented lateral coronoid process in an English Bulldog. Vet Surg 53:769–775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.

Articles from Veterinary Research Communications are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES