Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255388

Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in 22 dogs

Elaine V Dinwiddie 1, Aaron Rendahl 2, Stan Veytsman 3, Guillaume Ragetly 4, Albert C Lynch 1, Brianna Miniter 5, Ron Ben-Amotz 6,*
Editor: Simon Clegg7
PMCID: PMC8323925  PMID: 34329353

Abstract

The objective of this study was to report post-operative complications and outcomes in canines undergoing elbow arthrodesis (EA) with fixation techniques including bone plate fixation with a non-locking dynamic compression plate (DCP), bone plate fixation with a locking plate (LCP), and external skeletal fixator (ESF). Medical records of twenty-two cases that underwent EA between January 2009-December 2019 from 8 referral hospitals including both private practice and academic institutions were reviewed. Post-operative complications were classified as either minor or major, surgical evaluations were performed 8 weeks post operatively, and a follow-up questionnaire was sent to owners. Of the total 22 cases that met inclusion criteria, a total of 19/22 cases had complications, 12 major and 7 minor. Complications reported in 8/9, 7/9, and 4/4, for the DCP, LCP, and ESF fixation groups, respectively. Mild to moderate mechanical lameness was identified at surgical evaluation in 16/22 cases. Complete radiographic bone healing was achieved after 9 weeks in 19/22 cases. Long term owner follow up was available in 14/22 cases. Owners reported a good to normal quality of life in 13/14 cases and poor in one case. The majority of owners (11/14) reported good to excellent satisfaction with the outcome irrespective of persistent lameness. This study demonstrates that successful EA can be achieved using a variety of fixation methods, but persistent lameness is expected and complication rate is high.

Introduction

Lameness associated with the elbow joint is common in dogs and may be congenital, developmental, or traumatic in origin. For many dogs, acceptable limb function may be achieved with surgical and medical therapy; however, in a subset of cases, this is not attained. These cases experience a lower quality of life due to their end-stage elbow joint disease and owners are often faced with the decision between more radical surgical intervention, or euthanasia.

The goals of surgical intervention for end-stage elbow pathology include stabilization of the joint, alleviation of pain, and maintaining limb functionality. There have been various procedures reported to achieve this, including various ostectomy techniques, elbow prosthetic arthroplasty, joint resurfacing, joint denervation, and arthrodesis [19]. Currently, an effective elbow joint replacement system is unavailable, and elbow arthrodesis (EA) may be the only available salvage procedure for cases where amputation is not a viable option.

Elbow arthrodesis is an infrequently reported procedure with only 6 cases reported in the past 10 years of literature [10, 11]. In a paper published in 1996, EA was reported in twelve dogs, and it was concluded that while acceptable function was attained, mechanical lameness persisted [10]. Post-operatively, mechanical lameness can be anticipated due to the fixed angle of the elbow joint [10]. Unfortunately, literature reporting major and minor post-operative complications in dogs having undergone EA is lacking.

There are currently pre-contoured arthrodesis plates available for the carpus and tarsus. A locking implant pre-contoured for medial elbow arthrodesis has been developed in the last 2 years and used successfully in a previous study [11]. However, there are currently no commercially available implants dedicated for the use of caudal EA application, the development of which may improve post-operative outcomes in cases.

The objective of this study was to report post-operative complications, long term outcome, and owner satisfaction in dogs following EA stabilized by dynamic compression plates (DCP), locking plates (LCP), and external skeletal fixation (ESF).

Materials and methods

Medical records from 8 different referral institutions were reviewed from January 2009 to December 2019. Dogs having undergone EA were included and grouped based on fixation method. Details regarding age, gender, bodyweight, indication for EA, surgical technique, angle of elbow fixation, post-operative complications (major and minor), post-operative lameness exams, and radiographic outcome were obtained from medical records. Surgical complications were recorded for each type of fixation and divided into two groups: minor complications and major complications. Minor complications were defined as those that resolved with non-surgical intervention, such as superficial surgical site infections (SSI), single screw/pin breakage or loosening, and superficial bandage complications [11, 12]. Major complications were those that required revision surgery and/or hospitalization such as deep SSI, bone fracture, and bone plate fracture [12].

The intended arthrodesis angle was based on previous reports of standing elbow angles in dogs ranging from 110–159 degrees [810, 1316]. The angle of elbow fixation was measured on immediate post-operative radiographs in all cases. It was measured as the intersection of the mechanical axis of the distal humeral diaphysis and mechanical axis of the proximal radius [8, 10].

Outcome was assessed by post-operative surgical evaluations and radiographic imaging that were performed at an average of 9 weeks post operatively. Lameness exams were categorized as none, mild, moderate, or severe at 8-week post-operative surgical evaluations.

Long-term follow-up was completed via telephone questionnaire with owners at the time of data collection. The questionnaire was a modified version of a previously reported owner-questionnaire used to assess the dog’s function and owner-perceived outcome [10]. Owners were asked to report their pet’s current overall lameness as either none (no detectable lameness), mild (intermittent weight bearing lameness), moderate (frequent weight bearing lameness), or severe (non-weight bearing lameness). In addition, owners reported the current quality of life of their pet as either normal, good, fair, or poor. The overall owner satisfaction with the procedure was reported as excellent good, fair, or poor.

Results

A total of 21 canines met the inclusion criteria including one case with bilateral staged EA procedures, resulting in 22 total cases. Of the cases included, there were 8 castrated males, 4 intact males, 5 spayed females, and 4 intact females. Median age at the time of surgery was 4.0 years (range, 4 mo. -10 yrs.). Median body weight was 17.8kg [range, 1.25kg-42kg]. Breeds included were Labrador Retrievers (4), German Shepherd dogs (3), Bull Mastiff (1), Golden Retriever (1), Samoyed (1), Coton de Tulear (1), Yorkshire Terrier (3), Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (1), Cocker Spaniel (1), Miniature Pinscher (1), Rat Terrier (1), French Bulldog (1), and mixed breeds (3).

The etiology of the end stage joint disease necessitating EA were as follows: distal humeral fracture failure, non-union, or mal union (7), luxation or subluxation (5), chronic infection of humeral condylar fracture (1), end-stage elbow osteoarthritis (7), pathologic condylar fracture (1), and failure of elbow arthroplasty (1). Seven of the 22 cases had concurrent orthopedic disease including degenerative joint disease of the carpi, stifles, and hips, medial patella luxation correction, femoral head and neck ostectomy, cranial cruciate ligament rupture repairs (tibial plateau leveling osteotomy, tibial tuberosity advancement), and hip dysplasia.

Surgical procedure

Surgical procedures were performed by, or under the direct supervision of, diplomates of the American and/or European College of Veterinary Surgeons. Implants were selected at the discretion of the surgeon and included various manufacturers. In total, twenty-two EA procedures were included in this study, and were stabilized by ESF (4/22), DCP (9/22) or LCP (9/22) fixation. Bone plates were applied medially (1/18), laterally (3/18), or caudally (14/18). A 3.5 mm DCP was used in all procedures, and a 2.0/2.4/3.5 mm LCP was used in all procedures. A lateral 2.0 LCP was placed to augment a caudal LCP in one case. Prior to plate fixation, transarticular screws and/or pins were used in 14/18 cases. ESF configurations used included a Type 1A configuration, a Type 1B configuration, a Type 1A with a tie-in configuration, and a Type 1A configuration augmented with Kirschner and cerclage wire.

An olecranon osteotomy was performed in 21/22 procedures to provide access to articular cartilage that was removed with either a bur attached to a high-speed air drill (CONMED, Utica, NY, United States) or with a handheld curette. Once completed, bone graft was placed in the humeroulnar, humeroradial, and radioulnar joints in 17/22 cases. Of the 17 procedures that were grafted, an autogenous bone graft was used in 15 cases. A mixture of autogenous bone and allograft bone was used in one case and bone putty (Evergraft, Everost Inc., Sturbridge, MA, United States) was used in one case. Harvest sites used were the humerus, radius, ulna, ilium as well as bone removed from the surgical site to facilitate reduction. Documentation of graft source was unavailable in one case.

Three cases had chronic elbow luxation that required additional procedures including distal humeral, ulnar, and/or radial osteotomies to achieve appropriate mechanical angulation and alignment. These procedures along with the olecranon osteotomies, were stabilized with either pins, screws, pin and screw, or pin and tension band prior to application of the definitive repair.

One intra-operative complication was reported, an iatrogenic humeral diaphyseal fissure that occurred during application of a caudal LCP but did not require revision.

Imaging

No major complications were identified on immediate post-operative radiographs. The mean angle of fixation measured on post-operative radiographs was 120.9 degrees (range 93.5–140 degrees).

Bone healing at the EA site was identified as either progressing or complete on average 9 weeks (range 8–18 weeks) post-operatively in 19/22 cases.

Five cases did not receive a bone graft. Three of those cases had appropriate bone healing identified on 8-week post-operative radiographs. One dog was euthanized due to recurrence of soft tissue sarcoma prior to follow up radiographs. One case resulted in EA nonunion and pin migration that was identified on 8-week post-operative radiographs. The dog subsequently underwent ESF revision with bone screws and wire. Bone graft was placed during the EA revision and bone fusion was identified on radiographs 18 weeks post-operative from the initial surgery.

DCP complications and outcome

Of the 9 reported DCP cases used for EA, complications occurred in 8/9. Of those, five cases had major complications and 3 cases had minor complications (Table 1). Minor complications included SSI, limb swelling, seroma, pain, superficial sores, and broken olecranon screw. Major complications included implant migration, implant fracture, arthrodesis nonunion, and deep SSI. Major complications resulted in partial explantation in 1/4 cases and complete explantation in 3/4 cases. One case (case #5) had 3 pins explanted 9 weeks post operatively due to pin migration while the primary construct remained intact (Fig 1). A methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) infection developed in one case (case #6) that led to implant exposure, non-healing wounds, and nonunion. Revision surgery versus amputation was discussed, but the owners elected medical management with serial bandage changes. The dog was humanely euthanized 7 months post operatively due to progressive lameness and decreased quality of life. Bilateral EA procedures were performed in one case, staged two months apart (case #7, #8). Complete explantation was performed on the right elbow post operatively due to screw loosening and bone plate shifting. The left side resulted in EA failure due to shifting and fracture of the implant 7 weeks post-operatively and was revised with a caudal DCP fixation.

Table 1. Individual case post-operative minor and major complications.
No. Signalment Fixation Minor complications Major Complications
1 Bullmastiff DCP Broken olecranon screw Deep SSI
7 YO, FS, 42 kgs
2 Cocker Spaniel DCP Pain None
6 YO, CM, 12 kgs
3 Labrador Retriever DCP Pain, limb swelling, transient radial neuropraxia None
9.5 YO, FS, 33 kgs
4 Labrador Retriever DCP SSI None
8 YO, M, 34 kgs
5 German Shepherd DCP SSI, incisional erythema Pin migration
1.5 YO, SF, 39.4 kgs
6 Samoyed DCP SSI, pain, sores, bruising, bone plate exposure, muscle atrophy Deep SSI, arthrodesis nonunion
3.5 YO, CM, 29.9 kgs
7 Labrador Retriever DCP SSI, pain, limb swelling Screw loosening, bone plate shifting
3 YO, CM, 23 kgs (right)
8 Labrador Retriever DCP Limb swelling, seroma formation Deep SSI, bone plate fracture, implant shifting
3 YO, CM, 23 kgs (left)
9 Golden retriever DCP None None
10 YO, SF, 26 kgs
10 German Shepherd LCP SSI Deep SSI, incision dehiscence, implant exposure, radius/ulna fracture
3 YO, CM, 34.4 kgs
11 Mixed breed LCP SSI, nonhealing wound Proximal screw loosening, pin migration, distal screw fracture
7 YO, CM 11.1 kgs
12 Coton de Tuléar LCP SSI None
1.9 YO, SF, 8 kgs
13 Yorkshire LCP None None
7 YO, CM, 4 kgs
14 Mixed breed LCP Broken olecranon screw None
0.3 YO, M, 4 kgs
15 Yorkshire LCP None None
8 YO, F, 2.7 kgs
16 Yorkshire LCP Humeral fissure None
0.6 YO, M, 2.2 kgs
17 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel LCP Transient radial neuropraxia, olecranon segment displacement None
0.3 YO, F, 2.8 kgs
18 Mixed breed LCP None Deep SSI
3 YO, CM, 12 kgs
19 Miniature Pinscher ESF Bandage sores, muscle atrophy, osteomyelitis, non-weight bearing lameness Radius fracture
1 YO, F, 1.25 kgs
20 German Shepherd ESF SSI, pain, limb swelling, bandage sores, pin site inflammation, muscle atrophy, carpal hyperextension Deep SSI, pin loosening
1 YO, M, 35.2 kgs
21 Rat Terrier ESF SSI, pain, self-trauma, pin site inflammation, suture reaction, transient radial neuropraxia, reduced carpal flexion, non-weight bearing lameness Pin migration, arthrodesis nonunion
0.25 YO, F, 2.54 kgs
22 French Bulldog ESF SSI, interdigital erythema, limb swelling Deep SSI, pin loosening, pin fracture
5.5 YO, CM, 14.7 kgs

No. = case number; YO = years old; M = male; F = Female; CM = castrated male; SF = spayed female; kgs = kilograms; DCP = dynamic compression plate; LCP = locking compression plate; ESF = external skeletal fixator; SSI = surgical site infection.

Fig 1. Post-operative radiographs of DCP EA performed to stabilize a chronic, traumatic elbow luxation (case #5).

Fig 1

(A, B) Three k-wires placed to stabilize the olecranon prior to caudal plate application. One k-wire was placed across the ulna-humerus prior to plate application. (C, D) Pin migration resulted in their removal. This resulted in proximal and lateral olecranon displacement (white arrow).

Surgical evaluations were performed 8 weeks post operatively in all DCP cases. Seven of the 9 cases had mild to moderate mechanical lameness with varying degrees of circumduction. Two cases had severe non weight bearing lameness. Seven cases had complete bone healing identified on radiographs at a median time of 9 weeks post-operatively (range 8–18 weeks). One case (case #3) did not have follow-up radiographs performed and nonunion was identified in one case (case #6).

Long-term follow-up was completed via telephone questionnaire in 7/9 DCP cases (range of 7 months-9 years post-operatively) (Table 2). Owners reported no lameness in one case, mild to moderate lameness in 3/7 cases, and severe lameness in 3/7 cases. A fair to good quality of life was reported in 6/7 cases with an overall good to excellent owner satisfaction in 6/7 cases. Owners of the dog with staged bilateral EAs (case #7, #8) reported severe non weight bearing lameness of both limbs but good quality of life. However, due to persistent bilateral thoracic limb lameness and concurrent bilateral pelvic limb orthopedic disease, the dog was placed in a mobility cart for the thoracic limbs and a wheelchair for the pelvic limbs. One owner reported poor quality of life of the dog and poor satisfaction with the procedure (case #6).

Table 2. Long term follow-up owner questionnaire regarding dog limb usage, quality of life, and overall owner satisfaction.
Owner questionnaire post op DCP elbow arthrodesis in 7 cases
Preoperative lameness severity None Mild Moderate Severe (7)
Current lameness severity at walk None (1) Mild (2) Moderate (3) Severe (1)
Current lameness severity at run None Mild (3) Moderate (1) Severe (3)
Current overall limb disability None (1) Mild (1) Moderate (2) Severe (3)
Current quality of life Normal (1) Good (5) Fair Poor (1)
Owner questionnaire post op LCP elbow arthrodesis in 4 cases
Preoperative lameness severity None Mild Moderate Severe (4)
Current lameness severity at walk None (1) Mild (2) Moderate (1) Severe
Current lameness severity at run None (2) Mild (2) Moderate Severe
Current overall limb disability None (1) Mild (2) Moderate (1) Severe
Current quality of life Normal Good (4) Fair Poor
Owner questionnaire post op ESF elbow arthrodesis in 3 cases
Preoperative lameness severity None Mild Moderate Severe (3)
Current lameness severity at walk None Mild (1) Moderate (1) Severe (1)
Current lameness severity at run None Mild (2) Moderate Severe (1)
Current overall limb disability None Mild Moderate (1) Severe (2)
Current quality of life Normal (2) Good (1) Fair Poor

Owners’ responses to long term follow-up questions for cases are noted in parentheses.

LCP complications and outcome

Of the 9 reported LCP cases used for EA, complications occurred in 7/9 cases. Of those, 3 cases had major complications and 4 cases had minor complications (Table 1). Minor complications included SSI, transient neuropraxia, broken olecranon screw, and humeral fissure (Fig 2). Major complications included screw fracture, screw loosening, deep SSI, and radius/ulna fracture. Superficial SSI occurred in one case that resulted in dehiscence of the surgical site (case #10), and at 9 weeks post-operatively, a fracture of the radius and ulna occurred distal to the implant. The fracture was repaired with a cranially applied 3.5mm LCP and the dehisced surgical arthrodesis site was debrided and closed.

Fig 2. Radiographs of LCP EA revision for nonunion of previously repaired supracondylar humeral fracture (case #15).

Fig 2

(A, B) Preoperative failed supracondylar humeral fracture repair. (C, D) Revision EA. The previous implants were removed, olecranon osteotomy stabilization with a positional screw. Transarticular pin applied from ulna to humerus prior to caudal LCP application. (E, F) 4-month post-operative healed EA.

Surgical evaluations were performed 8 weeks post operatively in all LCP cases. One case had no lameness reported and 8/ 9 cases had mild to moderate mechanical lameness with varying degrees of circumduction. Bone healing was identified on radiographs at a median time of 9 weeks post-operatively in 8 cases.

Long-term follow-up was completed via telephone questionnaire in 4/9 LCP cases (range of 7 months-9 years post-operatively) (Table 2). Owners reported no lameness in one case and mild to moderate lameness in 3/4 cases. Owners reported a good quality of life in 4/4 dogs and good to excellent owner satisfaction in 4/4 cases.

ESF complications and outcome

Of the 4 reported ESF cases used for EA, complications occurred in 4/4 cases. Both major and minor complications occurred in all cases (Table 1). Minor complications included superficial SSI, pain, non-weight bearing lameness, and muscle atrophy. Major complications included deep SSI, pin loosening, pin breakage, arthrodesis non-union, and long bone fracture.

Two pins were removed due to pain and loosening identified at 8-week post-operative surgical evaluation (case #20). Moderate mechanical lameness was reported at 12-week post-operative surgical evaluation. Bone healing was identified on radiographs at that time and the ESF was removed. The case was lost to long term follow up.

One case had severe, non-weight bearing lameness at 8-week post-operative surgical evaluation (case #19). Radiographs showed complete fusion of the EA site along with a fracture of the radius through the distal pin site. The ESF was removed, and the fracture was managed with a soft padded bandage and caudal splint for 8 weeks. At long term follow up, the owner reported that the dog continued to have severe, non-weight bearing lameness (Table 2). The owner reported a normal quality of life for the dog and fair satisfaction with the outcome. The dog was euthanized 5 years post operatively due to several concurrent pathologies including multiple limb lameness, chronic renal disease, and seizures.

One case had moderate to severe lameness reported at surgical evaluation 8 weeks post-operatively (case #21). Early hypertrophic non-union of the ulnar osteotomy site, loosening of the ESF pins, and cranial intramedullary pin migration were identified on radiographs at that time. The ESF was removed and revised with 3 transarticular cortical screws and a transarticular k-wire. Moderate mechanical lameness was reported at 4-week post-revision surgical evaluation and radiographs showed appropriate fusion of the EA site 18 weeks post-operatively. At long term owner follow up, the owner reported that the dog had severe lameness. The owner also reported a normal quality of life and fair satisfaction with the outcome.

Acute, non-weight bearing lameness occurred 6 weeks post operatively in one case (case #22). Radiographs showed that the distal humeral ESF pin had fractured. The pin was removed and a 11 hole 2.7mm non-locking reconstruction plate was applied to the caudal aspect of the elbow for additional construct strength. Surgical evaluation was performed 8 weeks post-revision. Moderate mechanical lameness was reported with appropriate fusion of the EA site on radiographs. The ESF was removed at that time. On long term follow up, the owner reported that the dog had moderate lameness. The owner reported a good quality of life and excellent satisfaction with the outcome (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Radiographs of ESF revision of previously failed arthrodesis of a medial condylar fracture (case #22).

Fig 3

(A, B) Post-operative revision EA procedure with a type 1A ESF. The 3 proximal humeral pins and the 3 distal radial pins were stabilized with a carbon bar. Bone graft was placed. (C, D) 6 weeks post-operative radiographs. Fractured distal humeral ESF pin (white arrow). (E, F) The fractured pin was removed. A caudal reconstruction plate was applied with 3 proximal screws placed in the humerus and 2 distal screws placed through the ulna and radius.

Discussion

This is the first report discussing the major and minor complications and outcomes associated with EA using a variety of fixation types. While complication rates were high for all fixation types, complete elbow arthrodesis was radiographically achieved in 19/22 cases in this study. On long term follow up, 7/14 cases maintained mild to moderate lameness, 2/14 cases had no lameness, and 5/14 cases had severe non weight bearing lameness. While persistent lameness is anticipated long-term, lameness had improved in 9/14 cases. Irrespective of lameness,13/14 owners reported good to normal quality of life for their pets. These outcomes show that elbow arthrodesis, while under reported, remains a viable option for cases where other surgical repair options or amputation are not suitable.

In two previous publications, complication rates for EA were reported between 16–50% for both minor and major complications [10, 11]. In total, 19 complications, 7 minor and 12 major, are reported in the current study, which is consistent with the previously described complication rates for EA [10, 11]. Complications associated with ESF constructs were consistent with previous reports including pin migration and pin fracture resulting in surgical revision in all cases [8, 1719]. The underlying cause for the complications is suspected to be multifactorial in nature including lack of standardized surgical repair and post-operative care, concurrent/underlying orthopedic disease, varying timeframes for veterinary clinical assessment, and owner compliance. Further studies are required to elucidate potential risk factors associated with the development of concurrent major and minor complications regardless of fixation style.

In the current study, the most common post-operative complication within each group was superficial SSI with an overall rate of 59%. SSI (superficial or deep) was not reported as a complication in either of the two previously published EA reports [10, 11]. SSI was reported in all groups of EA with a rate of 67% in the DCP group, 44% in LCP group, and 75% in the ESF group. These rates are higher than others that have been previously reported [2022]. The cause of these higher infection rates is unknown but is suspected to be multifactorial in nature including the small sample size. Reported SSI rates in clean orthopedic procedures ranges from 0.6% to 7.1% [20, 23, 24]. However, a recent study regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis in orthopedic surgeries identified that SSI rates were highest in arthrodesis cases with a rate of 25% [24]. Post-operative infections were also commonly reported in ESF applications, with a post-operative infection rate of 39.2% in a recent report [17]. It was noted that the infection rate was dependent on the region of ESF application with superficial pin tract infection more common in the femur, humerus, radius and ulna, and pes [8, 1719]. According to this study, the reported ESF infection rate may therefore be attributed to the region of application of the elbow.

The optimal use of antimicrobials in prevention of SSI is ongoing. Many studies suggest post-operative administration of antimicrobials in orthopedic procedures is protective against SSI in dogs [2528]; however, there is evidence that prophylactic antibiotic administration in clean orthopedic procedures is not warranted [26]. Due to the retrospective nature of the present study, documentation of antimicrobial administration was not readily available in all cases but due to the high SSI rate, antibiotic administration along with culture and sensitivity testing should be considered in EA cases.

Mechanical lameness is an expected outcome of EA due to the fixed elbow joint angle [911]. In cases available for follow up, owners reported that in 7/14 cases, the dogs were lame with some degree of circumduction during ambulation. Due to the nature of the surgery, mechanical lameness is anticipated; however long-term physical examination would be required to confirm that the lameness was mechanical in nature. There are several published recommendations for elbow angle fixation, but an ideal angle of fixation has not been described. The currently recommended range of 110–159 degrees was strived for at the time of surgery [911, 1316]. The mean angle of fixation was 120.9 degrees (range 93.5–140 degrees) which was considered appropriate based on the given range. On follow up, the case with the most acute angle of fixation (93.5 degrees) exhibited mechanical lameness but improved limb function overall, providing evidence that the clinical effects of these fixed angles remain largely unknown.

Surgical approach of the elbow can be performed either caudally or laterally. Appropriate cartilage debridement through a medial approach has been reported previously and was performed in a single case in this study [11, 29, 30]. The medial approach does not require an olecranon osteotomy and thus alleviates the risk of olecranon implantation failure or fragment displacement which occurred in three caudally approached cases in this study.

Follow-up was available for 14 cases but was not conducted at standardized post-operative times. Follow up questionnaires demonstrated that 13/14 dogs had a positive quality of life following EA. Owners reported no lameness in 2/14 cases, mild to moderate lameness in 7/14 cases, and severe lameness in 5/14 cases. Long term satisfaction was reported as good to excellent in 11/14 of owners. The responses to questions regarding dog functionality, quality of life and owner satisfaction with the outcome were interesting in the case with bilateral EA. On follow up, the staged bilateral EA dog (case #7, #8) had persistent non-weight bearing lameness bilaterally. The dog was placed in a mobility cart for thoracic limb orthopedic disease and a wheelchair for the pelvic limb orthopedic disease. Irrespective of the dog’s lameness, the owner reported a good quality of life and good satisfaction with the outcome. This paradox between satisfied owners versus failure to achieve a functional outcome is most likely due to a multitude of subjective factors that have been put in place independently by each individual; however, according to Cook, et. al. it is possible to have satisfied owner yet an unacceptable outcome [12].

There are limitations of this study including its retrospective nature, limited heterogenous sample sizes, varying time frame to follow-up, lack of long-term surgical evaluation, and lack of consistent surgical/post-operative management. As with many retrospective studies, enrolment relied on submission of cases several years old, often with incomplete/inaccurate records, and follow-up was not always possible. The wide variability in institutional record-keeping precluded determination of prevalence of complications and potential risk factors associated with EA.

The current study shows that EA can be performed successfully; however, it has a high post-operative complication rate regardless of the method of fixation. The results of this study also indicate that EA using locking or non-locking plate systems provided acceptable restoration of limb function and pain alleviation. The majority of cases in this study had a good quality of life but maintained some degree of lameness and disuse at either a walk or a run in all groups. The ESF group had the highest rate of complications with 2/3 dogs having severe lameness on long term follow up resulting in unacceptable outcomes. Regardless, the majority of owners reported good to excellent satisfaction in all groups. SSI was the most commonly reported complications but has not been described previously as a complication in EA. Postoperative complications were identified in all groups of fixations; however, further research is needed to determine statistical inference between the groups and to identify potential risk factors associated with complications and EA fixation type.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael Conzemius for his generous contribution of cases to this study.

Data Availability

The minimal data set is listed in the paper as Table 1.

Funding Statement

The author(s) receive no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Smith ZF, Wendelburg KL, Tepic S, Stover SM, Garcia-Nolen T, Stearns PB, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of load to failure testing of a canine unconstrained medial compartment elbow arthroplasty system and normal canine thoracic limbs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2013; 26(5); 356–365. doi: 10.3415/VCOT-12-09-0115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Michelsen J. Canine elbow dysplasia: aetiopathogenesis and current treatment recommendations. Vet J. 2013;196(1):12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Budsberg SC, Bartges JW. Nutrition and osteoarthritis in dogs: does it help?. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2006;36(6):1307–vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2006.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rychel JK. Diagnosis and treatment of osteoarthritis. Top Companion Anim Med. 2010;25(1):20–25. doi: 10.1053/j.tcam.2009.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Frye CW, Shmalberg JW, Wakshlag JJ. Obesity, Exercise and Orthopedic Disease. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2016;46(5):831–841. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2016.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Conzemius M. Nonconstrained elbow replacement in dogs. Vet Surg. 2009;38(2):279–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00494.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zamprogno H, Hash J, Husle DA, Lascelles BDX. Elbow denervation in dogs: development of an in vivo surgical procedure and pilot testing. Vet J. 2011;190(2):220–224. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Johnston S, Tobias K. Veterinary Surgery Small Animal. 2nd ed. Canada: Elsevier; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Slatter D, Lesser AS. Arthrodesis. In: Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3nd ed. Philadelphia PA: WB Saunders Co.; 2003: 2170–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.De Haan J, Roe S, Lewis D, Renberg W, Kerwin S, Bebchuk T. Elbow arthrodesis in twelve dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996;9 (03):115–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632515 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McCarthy J, Comerford EJ, Innes JF, Pettitt RA. Elbow Arthrodesis Using a Medially Positioned Plate in 6 Dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2020;33(1):51–58. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1694783 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cook JL, Evans R, Conzemius MG, Lascelles BD, McIlwraith CW, Pozzi A, et al. Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine. Vet Surg. 2010. Dec;39(8):905–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00763.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jaegger G, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D. Reliability of goniometry in Labrador Retrievers. Am J Vet Res. 2002;63(7):979–986. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2002.63.979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Milgram J, Slonim E, Kass PH, Shahar R. A radiographic study of joint angles in standing dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2004; 17(02):82–90. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1636485 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Watson C, Rochat M, Payton M. Effect of weight bearing on the joint angles of the fore- and hind limb of the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2003;16(04):250–254. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632787 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Owne M, Richards J, Clements DN, Drew ST, Bennett D, Carmichael S. Kinematics of the elbow and stifle joints in greyhounds during treadmill trotting-an investigation of familiarization. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2004; 17:141–145. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632802 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Beever LJ, Giles K, Meeson RL. Postoperative Complications Associated with External Skeletal Fixators in Dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2018;31(2):137–143. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1627477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beever LJ, Kulendra ER, Meeson RL. Short and long-term outcome following surgical stabilization of tarsocrural instability in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2016;29(2):142–148. doi: 10.3415/VCOT-15-05-0083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Benson JA, Boudrieau RJ. Severe carpal and tarsal shearing injuries treated with an immediate arthrodesis in seven dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2002;38(4):370–380. doi: 10.5326/0380370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Weese JS. A review of postoperative infections in veterinary orthopaedic surgery. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2008;21;99–105. doi: 10.3415/vcot-07-11-0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aiken MJ, Hughes TK, Abercromby RH, Holmes MA, Anderson AA. Prospective, randomized comparison of the effect of two antimicrobial regimes on surgical site infection rate in dogs undergoing orthopedic implant surgery. Vet Surg. 2015;44(5):661–667. doi: 10.1111/vsu.12327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gallagher AD, Mertens WD. Implant removal rate from infection after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs. Vet Surg. 2012;41(6);705–711. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2012.00971.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Verwilghen D, Singh A. Fighting surgical site infections in small animals: are we getting anywhere? Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2015;45(2):76. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Valkki KJ, Thomson KH, Gronthal TSC, Junnila J, Rantala MHJ, Laitinen-Vapaavuori OM, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is considered sufficient to preserve an acceptable surgical site infection rate in clean orthopaedic an dneurosurgeries in dogs. Acta Vet Scand. 2020;62(53). doi: 10.1186/s13028-020-00545-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Frey TN, Hoelzler MG, Scavelli TD, Fulcher RP, Bastian RP. Risk factors for surgical site infection-inflammation in dogs undergoing surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament: 902 cases (2005–2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010;236;88–94. doi: 10.2460/javma.236.1.88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Spencer DD, Daye RM. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study on postoperative antibiotherapy in 150 arthroscopy-assisted tibial plateau leveling osteotomies in dogs. Vet Surg. 2018;47(8):E87. doi: 10.1111/vsu.12958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pratesi A, Moores AP, Downes C, Grierson J, Maddox TW. Efficacy of postoperative antimicrobial use for clean orthopedic implant surgery in dogs: a prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive cases. Vet Surg. 2015;44:653–60. doi: 10.1111/vsu.12326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Solano MA, Danielski A, Kovach K, Fitzpatrick N, Farrell M. Locking plate and screw fixation after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy reduces postoperative infection rate in dogs over 50 kg. Vet Surg. 2015;44(1):59–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12212.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Treatment. 5th ed. Missouri: WB Saunders Co.; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Johnson KA. Piermattei’s Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones and Joints of the Dog and Cat. 5th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014:250–251. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Simon Clegg

4 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-20573

Retrospective evaluation of post-operative complications of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in dogs: 22 cases (2009-2019)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dinwiddie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One

Your manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field, and they have suggested some revisions be made to it prior to acceptance.

If you could make these revisions, and write a response to reviewers, it will greatly expedite revision upon resubmission

I wish you the best of luck with your revisions

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This case series reports the outcomes of elbow arthrodesis in 22 dogs. It is the largest series of its kind, and the manuscript also provides an update on the techniques as the previous largest case series was published decades ago. The authors are commended for collating the cases at multiple institutions, as well as attempting to obtain long term (albeit verbal) follow-up. There is potentially publishable material here, but several major flaws must be addressed:

- While the content of the manuscript was generally straight-forward, the scientific writing style needs much improvement, particularly pertaining to grammar. The authors should consider having the paper professionally edited prior to the next submission.

- There are many problems with sentence structure (too numerous to highlight every one), and anthropomorphisms (e.g. a group of dogs cannot report complications lines 36,179,183...).

- Additionally, it is not appropriate to report 'rates', 'common/uncommon' occurrences, and '%' when case numbers are so low (e.g. line 226 the most common major complication was pin migration (2/4)). Simply report the numbers as they are.

- There are over-reaching and misleading conclusions, which could be attributed to the lack of relevant data. Most importantly: reporting that most dogs had 'good to excellent quality of life' and 'high satisfaction' as one of the most relevant findings is highly misleading for this population. Indeed, most of the dogs had moderate or severe lameness on long term follow-up. The most striking case in point: (line 264-265)- one dog required a mobility cart due to lack of any weight-bearing on the arthrodesis limbs, yet the owners report good satisfaction and quality of life from the arthrodesis!! The authors should consider classifying outcomes as "full", "acceptable", "unacceptable" (per Cook et al., Vet Surg 2010) based on the questionnaire results. For instance, this reviewer would suggest outcomes of dogs with 'moderate' or 'severe' overall limb disability would be 'unacceptable'. Note that, per Cook et al Vet Surg 2010, it is possible to have a satisfied owner yet an unacceptable outcome. On a similar note- how is it possible to diagnose a 'mechanical' lameness by telephone conversation?

- The case numbers within groups are too low to draw any major conclusions from comparisons between groups - e.g. only 3 dogs with ESF had follow-up. Therefore, 'recommendations' (e.g. cannot recommend ESF) should be tempered.

- While the manuscript title suggests the case series focuses on complications, there is a clear intent to report overall outcomes as well. Therefore, 1) the title must be adjusted, and 2) more information regarding outcomes should be provided; namely- (when) was union of the arthrodesis documented for each case?

Specific comments:

Line 43: Conclusions: major complication rate was high for all groups. Why single out ESF if final result not obviously different?

Line 51-53: not sure how this is a ‘paradigm’; suggest deleting this sentence.

Paragraph starting line 65: Please report how many cases of elbow arthrodesis have been previously described. This will give better context for the relevance of this manuscript.

Line 86: why exclude these methods?

Line 120: What were the outcomes of the non-grafted cases? Grafting is a fundamentally important aspect of arthrodesis

Line 137-138: Provide the scales for satisfaction (excellent, good, fair, poor)

Line 154: please ensure none of the cases have been described in other papers; or otherwise disclose the information

Line 159-165: Redundant statements (already mentioned in the methods); delete

Line 172: Carpal valgus??

Line 178-186: all redundant information as these values are provided later in the results again

Table 2 is not easy to read; consider revising to chart form.

Line 244 vs line 253: range is 1-9 years yet 2 dogs were euthanized < 1 year postoperatively?

Line 285-288: cut and pasted out of results; please rephrase

Line 291-295: it is hard to agree with the logic here based on the data provided (i.e. that minor complications will lead to major complications).

Paragraph starting line 296: this paragraph should discuss SSI occurrence for all groups, yet only ESF is discussed.

Line 311: How is it known that the lameness was mechanical, since outcomes were defined by telephone conversations with owners?. There is no mention of circumduction in the results?

Paragraph starting line 321: Is this supposed to be the limitations paragraph? There are many more limitations than the variable approaches taken i.e. incomplete/inaccurate records, lack of veterinarian assessed follow-up, highly heterogenous population etc etc.

Paragraph starting line 333: The arguments here are based on extremely weak data. Indeed, from the table, it is not obvious that older animals had more complications or poorer outcomes.

Line 348: If you are recommending a validated assessment, why was one not used??

Line 258: "Good use of the operated limb" in the 'majority of patients' is simply not true; 10/14 dogs had moderate or severe limb disability; only 2/14 dogs did not have lameness at walk and run

Line 359-360: Where in the results is this shown? i.e. that ESF group had lacked improvement post-operatively and had lowest satisfaction (2 out of 3 owners were actually satisfied)?

Please consider adding a paragraph in the discussion on the paradox between satisfied owners vs lack of good limb use. One possibility is that the owners were simply happy that their dog was not amputated.

Reviewer #2: I think that this study has potential for publication as it is a nice series of reports on elbow arthrodesis in dogs, which is an under reported area, and this is a nice and fairly large study for this area. It is nice that it is multi centred too and the authors deserve a lot of credit for it. It is a nice study, and a nice paper with some good results, but I think that some are unclear and in some places, over interpreted.

I struggled to follow certain parts of it as it was quite contradictory. For example, how can dogs have an excellent quality of life, yet be moderate to severely lame? Including one which had a mobility cart? The two seem somewhat contradictory to me. I think I understand what you mean, but I think it needs some quantification.

I think I would also be tempted to edge on the side of caution with your conclusions, as although numbers are relatively large for this field, overall they are quite small.

The title is also a little misleading (wrong word but couldn’t think up a better one). You have a lot on clinical final outcomes, so that maybe better in the title too?

Line 54-57- its not the patients which have the difficult choices to make- it’s the owners!

Line 66- up to 100% means very little, can you be more specific?

Line 85- how was quality of life assessed?

Line 86- why were these methods excluded? Is there a specific reason?

Line 106- . In total, twenty-two EA procedures were included in this study (Add in comma)

Line 120- can you mention the outcomes of the cases? Particularly the grafts as these can sometimes be tricky to take

Line 135-139- these are quite open, subjective categories to ask. Were there scales used? If so, please include them

Some of the results are included already above, please consider revising

I struggled to follow table 2- this may be easier as a figure, or with more explanation.

Line 255- again it would be nice to know how the quality of life was judged

Line 285-288 is better in results, and used here to discuss prevalence etc

Line 291- is a major complaint not just a progression of a minor one? I can see what you are saying here but its unclear. Perhaps a major complaint masks a minor?

Line 303- To the authors knowledge, there is no published infection rate of (add in comma)

Line 311- hpw do you know that it is mechanical lameness? Unlikely that the owner would pick this up.

Line 321- the limitations are far greater than those explained, including inaccurate records, different vets, poor follow up etc

Line 333- I have concerns about some of the arguments here as the data isn’t that strong- maybe have a read over it and consider rewording it?

Line 358- good use of the limb seems in direct opposition to some of what you have said previously?

Line 359- isn’t the ESF group the lowest improvement group post op?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255388.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Jun 2021

Response to reviewers:

Thank you both for taking the time to review, and comment about our manuscript.

We hope that with this version all comments were addressed. Please let us know if any additional changes are needed.

Sincerely

Dr. Dinwiddie and authors

Reviewer #1:

While the content of the manuscript was generally straight-forward, the scientific writing style needs much improvement, particularly pertaining to grammar. The authors should consider having the paper professionally edited prior to the next submission.

-The manuscript has been re-written and professionally edited by experienced authors multiple times prior to re-submission making direct correction to grammar, sentence structure, and writing style.

Additionally, it is not appropriate to report 'rates', 'common/uncommon' occurrences, and '%' when case numbers are so low (e.g. line 226 the most common major complication was pin migration (2/4)). Simply report the numbers as they are.

-The sentence structures of the manuscript have been addressed to reflect numbers simply as reported. There are only 2 previously reported articles regarding EA which have are referenced in the manuscript. This lack of information regarding EA is noted starting in line 66

There are over-reaching and misleading conclusions, which could be attributed to the lack of relevant data. Most importantly: reporting that most dogs had 'good to excellent quality of life' and 'high satisfaction' as one of the most relevant findings is highly misleading for this population. Indeed, most of the dogs had moderate or severe lameness on long term follow-up. The most striking case in point: (line 264-265)- one dog required a mobility cart due to lack of any weight-bearing on the arthrodesis limbs, yet the owners report good satisfaction and quality of life from the arthrodesis!! The authors should consider classifying outcomes as "full", "acceptable", "unacceptable" (per Cook et al., Vet Surg 2010) based on the questionnaire results. For instance, this reviewer would suggest outcomes of dogs with 'moderate' or 'severe' overall limb disability would be 'unacceptable'. Note that, per Cook et al Vet Surg 2010, it is possible to have a satisfied owner yet an unacceptable outcome. On a similar note- how is it possible to diagnose a 'mechanical' lameness by telephone conversation?

-The conclusions have been edited to reflect that while arthrodesis can be achieved via multiple fixation methods, care should be taken in performing this procedure because all fixation groups had complications. Over-reaching statements have been removed and/or edited to reflect that. In addition, we have added statements discussing Cook et al’s paper reflecting that there was case with satisfied owners yet unacceptable outcome (lines 395-399). Statements were also added to discuss mechanical lameness at 8 week surgical rechecks (lines 202-208) and that while mechanical lameness is expected, without physical exams, it is not possible to confirm that the lameness is indeed mechanical in nature (lines 355-367)

The case numbers within groups are too low to draw any major conclusions from comparisons between groups - e.g. only 3 dogs with ESF had follow-up. Therefore, 'recommendations' (e.g. cannot recommend ESF) should be tempered.

-Statements singling out any one type of fixation have been removed as all types of fixations had complications.

While the manuscript title suggests the case series focuses on complications, there is a clear intent to report overall outcomes as well. Therefore, 1) the title must be adjusted, and 2) more information regarding outcomes should be provided; namely- (when) was union of the arthrodesis documented for each case?

-Title has been edited Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in dogs: 22 cases (2009-2019)

In addition, we have added dialogue regarding post-operative evaluations as well as information regarding arthrodesis union (lines 161-162)

Line 43: Conclusions: major complication rate was high for all groups. Why single out ESF if final result not obviously different?

-Statements regarding conclusions have been edited to reflect that while complication rates were high for all fixation types, arthrodesis is achievable in all fixation types as well (lines 46-47)

Line 51-53: not sure how this is a ‘paradigm’; suggest deleting this sentence.

-sentence deleted

Paragraph starting line 65: Please report how many cases of elbow arthrodesis have been previously described. This will give better context for the relevance of this manuscript.

-Paragraph starting line 63 discusses infrequency of EA reporting to give relevance of this manuscript (One paper written in the last 10 years)

Line 86: why exclude these methods?

-the methods of fixation that the authors wished to include in this study were bone plate and ESF which are the most common. Any other form was eliminated for continuity purposes and so that the categories of EA could be maintained.

-Cases included were those with EA performed by plate fixation or ESF and reflected in the abstract lines 26-30

Line 120: What were the outcomes of the non-grafted cases? Grafting is a fundamentally important aspect of arthrodesis

-Paragraph starting line 163 discussed outcome of non-grafted cases

Line 137-138: Provide the scales for satisfaction (excellent, good, fair, poor)

-Scales have been added for all evaluations (surgical and owner) in lines 92-103

Line 154: please ensure none of the cases have been described in other papers; or otherwise disclose the information

-None of these cases have been previously reported. The other 2 papers regarding EA are referenced in the manuscript

Line 159-165: Redundant statements (already mentioned in the methods); delete

-Redundant information and statement have been removed and/or edited

Table 2 is not easy to read; consider revising to chart form.

-Table 2 was revised into individual tables (Table 2, 3, and 4) to reflect responses to individual fixation types. The owners responses to the question on the left hand is written next to the possible options in parentheses to the right

Line 244 vs line 253: range is 1-9 years yet 2 dogs were euthanized < 1 year postoperatively?

-range was updated to reflect correct time frame (7 months-9 years)

Line 285-288: cut and pasted out of results; please rephrase

-redundant information was removed and results section restated

Line 291-295: it is hard to agree with the logic here based on the data provided (i.e. that minor complications will lead to major complications).

-Paragraph has been re-written to discuss infection associated with these fixations as we cannot conclude that one minor complication leads to a major. Discussion thus surrounds the SSI portion of complications in paragraph starting 331

Paragraph starting line 296: this paragraph should discuss SSI occurrence for all groups, yet only ESF is discussed.

-Paragraph starting 331 edited to discusses SSI. In all forms of EA fixation, not just ESF

Line 311: How is it known that the lameness was mechanical, since outcomes were defined by telephone conversations with owners?. There is no mention of circumduction in the results?

-Information regarding surgical evaluation at 8 weeks post operatively has been added to include mechanical lameness as well as circumduction (lines 63-68). Mechanical lameness is expected with this procedure; however, without performing PE, we cannot confirm that on long term evaluations with the owners via phone call if the lamenesses were indeed mechanical. This is reflected in discussion starting lines 355-360.

Paragraph starting line 321: Is this supposed to be the limitations paragraph? There are many more limitations than the variable approaches taken i.e. incomplete/inaccurate records, lack of veterinarian assessed follow-up, highly heterogenous population etc etc.

-Limitations paragraph has been re-written to reflect a more conclusive list starting line 406

Paragraph starting line 333: The arguments here are based on extremely weak data. Indeed, from the table, it is not obvious that older animals had more complications or poorer outcomes.

-Paragraph was removed as argument was weak and not founded on information gathered for this manuscript

Line 348: If you are recommending a validated assessment, why was one not used??

- We used a modified version of the previously reported questionnaire as a means to keep data consistent. The other validating system (i.e. force plate analysis) would be useful post operatively, but due to the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct that type of analysis.

Line 258: "Good use of the operated limb" in the 'majority of patients' is simply not true; 10/14 dogs had moderate or severe limb disability; only 2/14 dogs did not have lameness at walk and run

-10/14 dogs had mild to moderate lameness long term which is an improvement for these patients from pre-operatively. Again, mechanical lameness is expected so we anticipate lameness with some of these cases. This should be more evident now that the Table 2 has been broken down into individual tables to reflect the long term outcome of patients.

Line 359-360: Where in the results is this shown? i.e. that ESF group had lacked improvement post-operatively and had lowest satisfaction (2 out of 3 owners were actually satisfied)?

-ESF group did have a good outcome which is now reflected in the ESF complications and outcome section begin line 257. Outcome for each fixation type has been re-written and added to the respective section

Please consider adding a paragraph in the discussion on the paradox between satisfied owners vs lack of good limb use. One possibility is that the owners were simply happy that their dog was not amputated.

-Paragraph starting 383 was added to discuss this paradox

Reviewer #2:

I struggled to follow certain parts of it as it was quite contradictory. For example, how can dogs have an excellent quality of life, yet be moderate to severely lame? Including one which had a mobility cart? The two seem somewhat contradictory to me. I think I understand what you mean, but I think it needs some quantification.

-Paragraph starting line 383 was added to reflect that there can be pleased owners that perceive a good quality of life for their pet despite that they have an unacceptable outcome.

I think I would also be tempted to edge on the side of caution with your conclusions, as although numbers are relatively large for this field, overall they are quite small.

-Conclusions have been tempered and re-written to reflect the data given here, that all fixation types can result in complete arthrodesis but all groups had complications; therefore, the conclusions are merely cautionary in nature about EA as a procedure regardless of fixation type

The title is also a little misleading (wrong word but couldn’t think up a better one). You have a lot on clinical final outcomes, so that maybe better in the title too?

- Title has been edited Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in dogs: 22 cases (2009-2019)

Line 54-57- its not the patients which have the difficult choices to make- it’s the owners!

-The Abstract and Introduction have both been revised and include discussion of treatment of cases with end stage elbow disease and what options are available for owners.

Line 85- how was quality of life assessed?

-Quality of life was one of the long term questionnaire questions and a subjective measurement by the owners meant for them to assess how their pet was doing at that point long term (Table 2, 3, 4).

Line 86- why were these methods excluded? Is there a specific reason?

-The line was re-written- the cases included were cases that had EA performed by either LCP, DCP, or ESF.

Line 106- . In total, twenty-two EA procedures were included in this study (Add in comma)

-The manuscript was professionally edited again and hopefully addressed most of the grammatical errors. This sentence was re-written with the comma added

Line 120- can you mention the outcomes of the cases? Particularly the grafts as these can sometimes be tricky to take

-Case outcomes have been included in the paragraph regarding each respective fixation type (i.e. DCP complications and outcome). Table 2 had been broken down to reflect each fixation type, so are now Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. In addition, images of each fixation type have been included as well.

Some of the results are included already above, please consider revising

-The materials/methods and results sections have been revised to better include information in correct sections.

I struggled to follow table 2- this may be easier as a figure, or with more explanation.

-Table 2 was broken down to reflect owner responses to individual fixation types and are now Table 2, Table 3, Table 4

Line 291- is a major complaint not just a progression of a minor one? I can see what you are saying here but its unclear. Perhaps a major complaint masks a minor?

-Both major and minor complications have been revised in both Table 1 as well as the text to better clarify what is minor vs major.

Line 303- To the authors knowledge, there is no published infection rate of (add in comma)

-This paragraph has been edited to discuss infection in all types of fixation not only ESF in paragraph beginning 331

Line 311- hpw do you know that it is mechanical lameness? Unlikely that the owner would pick this up.

- Statements were added to discuss mechanical lameness at 8 week surgical rechecks (lines 202-208) and that while mechanical lameness is expected, without physical exams, it is not possible to confirm that the lameness is indeed mechanical in nature (lines 355-367)

Line 321- the limitations are far greater than those explained, including inaccurate records, different vets, poor follow up etc

-The paragraph regarding limitations has been edited and includes more limitations than previously discussed. This is discussed in paragraph starting at line 406

Line 333- I have concerns about some of the arguments here as the data isn’t that strong- maybe have a read over it and consider rewording it?

-The discussion portion was re-written to take into consideration that due to the low numbers of cases, some overarching conclusions couldn’t be made. This paragraph was reworded with specific changes to the arguments.

Line 359- isn’t the ESF group the lowest improvement group post op?

-The ESF group had the most complications associated with it but only 1 patient had low improvement. This section was re-written to reflect complications and outcome for ESF lines 258-294

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Simon Clegg

6 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-20573R1

Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in 22 dogs

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ben-Amotz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One

It was reviewed by two experts in the field as reviewed the original submission, and they have recommended some further modifications be made prior to acceptance

I therefore invite you to make these changes and to write a response to reviewers which will expedite revision upon resubmission

I wish you the best of luck with your modifications

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revisions, the manuscript is improved.

General comments:

- Do not use the word ‘patient’ unless referring to human subject. Use ‘dog’ or ‘case’ instead.

- Delete all % values- the numbers are too small in this study.

- The results and discussion are very lengthy and could be condensed further.

Specific comments:

Line 36,37: “Complications were reported in X/X, Y/Y, and Z/Z for the DCP, LCP, and ESF groups, respectively”

Do not jumble methods with results in abstract – i.e. move sentence on line 37 to methods area

Abstract conclusion: Yes it can be done, but persistent lameness is expected and complication rate is high.

Line 54: amputation is a radical surgical intervention – delete ‘amputation’

Line 63: Do not begin sentence with acronym

Line 64: what is meant by ‘the most recent literature’?

Line 70: Something is missing between the last two paragraphs of the introduction. Need to provide some comment about advent of new implants i.e. locking plates that might influence success rates.

Line 78: acronym not used for EA

Line 93: Outcome was based on evaluations/radiographs at what minimum time frame?

Line 97: the time range provided belongs in the results.

Line 134: why 9/9? The number of cases is already listed above

Tables 2-4 should be combined

Discussion:

First paragraph: Need to explicitly state that, while persistent lameness was typical, lameness had improved.

Line 333: Do not report % - numbers are too small therefore % are misleading.

Line 359: Was mechanical in nature

Line 375: A little too speculative; consider deleting this paragraph (manuscript is already very long)

Line 391-393: this needs to be stated in the results

Line 398-404: Consider deleting from “To increase the accuracy…” to the end of the paragraph.

Reviewer #2: I wish to thank the authors for making the previously suggested modifications. I have read the manuscript, and although it reads well, I still have a few minor comments to address prior to acceptance. These are listed below, but I don’t expect to see the manuscript again prior to acceptance so I want to wish you all the best with your future research.

Please note that these are only suggestions and I shall not be disappointed if they are not actioned.

Within the abstract, is it possible to have both the n and a % value? So lines 40. 41 and 42

Line 110- there is only 21 here, not the 22 which were included, Can you please add in the 22nd?

Line 116- again there are only 20 here, can you add in the other two please?

Line 143- completed, the bone graft (reword)

Line 144- grafted, an autogenous …(reword)

Line 153- screws rather than screw

Line 165- did not receive a bone graft (reword)

Line 179- non union, and deep SSI (reword)

Line 228- screw, and humeral fissure (reword)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255388.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Jul 2021

Response to reviewers:

Thank you both again for taking the time to review, and comment on our manuscript.

We hope that with this version all comments were addressed. This manuscript is required to obtain ACVS credentials by August 1, 2021. Please let us know if any additional changes are needed prior to acceptance.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dinwiddie and authors

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revisions, the manuscript is improved.

General comments:

Do not use the word ‘patient’ unless referring to human subject. Use ‘dog’ or ‘case’ instead.

-The term ‘patient’ was replaced with either dog or case throughout the manuscript

Delete all % values- the numbers are too small in this study.

-Percentage values were removed from the manuscript with the exception of the discussion of infection rates for this study. The statement of “small sample size” was added to the discussion paragraph to specifically recall that sample size plays a factor in these infection rates

The results and discussion are very lengthy and could be condensed further.

-Both the results and discussion have had portions removed or revised to condense the material.

Specific comments:

Line 36,37: “Complications were reported in X/X, Y/Y, and Z/Z for the DCP, LCP, and ESF groups, respectively”

-This line has been reworded as suggested above

Do not jumble methods with results in abstract – i.e. move sentence on line 37 to methods area

-Sentence removed from abstract and stated within methods section

Abstract conclusion: Yes it can be done, but persistent lameness is expected and complication rate is high.

-The concluding sentences were combined to read better

Line 54: amputation is a radical surgical intervention – delete ‘amputation’

-‘amputation’ was deleted

Line 63: Do not begin sentence with acronym

-Changed EA to Elbow Arthrodesis

Line 64: what is meant by ‘the most recent literature’?

-Defined and edited to say ‘in the past 10 years of literature’

Line 70: Something is missing between the last two paragraphs of the introduction. Need to provide some comment about advent of new implants i.e. locking plates that might influence success rates.

-Added paragraph addressing available implants

Line 78: acronym not used for EA

-Changed elbow arthrodesis to ‘EA’

Line 93: Outcome was based on evaluations/radiographs at what minimum time frame?

-Added ‘average of 9 weeks post operatively’. The full timeframe range is stated in the results section

Line 97: the time range provided belongs in the results.

-Moved timeframe to results section

Line 134: why 9/9? The number of cases is already listed above

-Removed ‘9/9’ and replaced with ‘all cases’

Tables 2-4 should be combined

-The tables have been combined into a single Table 2 and references within the manuscript edited to reflect the change

Discussion:

First paragraph: Need to explicitly state that, while persistent lameness was typical, lameness had improved.

-Added sentence to state that lameness had improved in 9/14 cases

Line 333: Do not report % - numbers are too small therefore % are misleading.

-Percentages have been removed

Line 359: Was mechanical in nature

-edited sentence to say ‘was mechanical in nature’

Line 375: A little too speculative; consider deleting this paragraph (manuscript is already very long)

-paragraph was removed

Line 391-393: this needs to be stated in the results

-This sentence was moved to the results and reworded to be included in the Discussion

Line 398-404: Consider deleting from “To increase the accuracy…” to the end of the paragraph.

-This section has been removed along with the references that were stated in the section

Reviewer #2:

I wish to thank the authors for making the previously suggested modifications. I have read the manuscript, and although it reads well, I still have a few minor comments to address prior to acceptance. These are listed below, but I don’t expect to see the manuscript again prior to acceptance so I want to wish you all the best with your future research.

Please note that these are only suggestions and I shall not be disappointed if they are not actioned.

Within the abstract, is it possible to have both the n and a % value? So lines 40. 41 and 42

-The percentages have been removed

Line 110- there is only 21 here, not the 22 which were included, Can you please add in the 22nd?

-This sentence is correct in that there were only 21 dogs- but one case had bilateral elbows operated making it 22 total procedures

Line 116- again there are only 20 here, can you add in the other two please?

-Recounted all patients and appropriately categorized. Number is now 22 including the bilateral case

Line 143- completed, the bone graft (reword)

-Did not add the word ‘the’

Line 144- grafted, an autogenous …(reword)

-Added the word ‘an’

Line 153- screws rather than screw

-Edited to make word plural

Line 165- did not receive a bone graft (reword)

-Added ‘a’

Line 179- non union, and deep SSI (reword)

-Added ‘and’

Line 228- screw, and humeral fissure (reword)

-Added ‘and’

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (2).docx

Decision Letter 2

Simon Clegg

16 Jul 2021

Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in 22 dogs

PONE-D-20-20573R2

Dear Dr. Ben-Amotz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

As you have addressed all the comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication

You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly.

It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of luck for your future research

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

Acceptance letter

Simon Clegg

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-20573R2

Evaluation of post-operative complications, outcome, and long-term owner satisfaction of elbow arthrodesis (EA) in 22 dogs

Dear Dr. Ben-Amotz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (2).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The minimal data set is listed in the paper as Table 1.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES