Does conservative or arthroscopic management of canine medial coronoid disease lead to improved outcomes?

PICO question: In dogs diagnosed with medial coronoid disease, does arthroscopic surgical intervention, compared with conservative management, result in improved mobility and reduced pain? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Three studies were identified directly addressing the PICO question. One paper was a retrospective cohort study, another study was a prospective randomised control trial, and the third was a non-randomised non-blinded observational study. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: The first study was a prospective non-randomised study that did not identify a difference in gait evaluation at the 52 week recheck in dogs treated conservatively compared to those treated arthroscopically, with lameness exacerbated in the arthroscopic treatment group until the 26 week recheck. The second study, a retrospective non-randomised cohort study, showed greater, but not statistically different, owner-reported clinical metrology scores in dogs treated arthroscopically compared to those treated conservatively. Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) and Pain Severity Scores (PSS) were higher but not statistically significant, yet Pain Interference Scores (PIS) were statistically significantly higher at 52 weeks in arthroscopically treated dogs compared to conservatively treated dogs. Age at diagnosis and at time of questionnaire completion were statistically significant for LOAD, PSS, and PIS, with older dogs having higher scores. The third study performed a non-blinded observational study assessing canine patients with bilateral medial coronoid disease, with unilateral arthroscopic subtotal coronoidectomy performed on the most clinically affected limb. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) imaging were performed at diagnosis, with radiographs taken at follow-up. At the time of follow-up, arthroscopically treated limbs had a higher radiographic score than those treated conservatively, although a significant improvement in lameness was seen at the walk in arthroscopically treated limbs. Conservatively managed dogs showed an unchanged (non-significant) gait. Radiographic changes did not appear to correlate to severity of clinical signs. Conclusion: The quality of the published evidence available to answer the PICO question is weak, due to the design of the three reviewed studies. Low patient populations in these three studies also hinder the statistical power of any recommendations made. None of the three studies assesses the complex nature of medial coronoid disease to clearly answer the question posed. The decision to recommend arthroscopy over conservative management therefore depends on the judgement and experience of the veterinary surgeon attending the case. Additionally, assessment of the imaging findings is important when discussing prospective treatment options.