← Articles

Lin et al: Does the Craniolateral Approach Provide Better Exposure to the Radius than the Craniomedial Approach for Internal Fracture Fixation in Dogs?
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Craniolateral approach (CLA) exposed significantly more radial surface area than craniomedial approach (CMA) (19.4 cm² vs. 13.8 cm²; p = 0.01).
  • Proximal width of exposure was greater in CLA, especially at 12.5% length (P2 level, p = 0.016), aiding plate placement.
  • No significant difference in exposed bone length between approaches.
  • CLA avoided major neurovascular structures, making dissection cleaner and safer proximally.
  • CMA consistently encountered median nerve/artery/vein, complicating proximal exposure.
  • CLA allowed better access to proximal radius for locking plate application, which may benefit MIPO techniques.
  • CLA also enables ulna fixation via the same incision, whereas CMA requires a separate skin incision.
  • Anatomical tilt of the proximal cranial surface favored CLA, requiring less plate contouring than CMA for proper fit.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Lin et al: Does the Craniolateral Approach Provide Better Exposure to the Radius than the Craniomedial Approach for Internal Fracture Fixation in Dogs?
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Craniolateral approach (CLA) exposed significantly more radial surface area than craniomedial approach (CMA) (19.4 cm² vs. 13.8 cm²; p = 0.01).
  • Proximal width of exposure was greater in CLA, especially at 12.5% length (P2 level, p = 0.016), aiding plate placement.
  • No significant difference in exposed bone length between approaches.
  • CLA avoided major neurovascular structures, making dissection cleaner and safer proximally.
  • CMA consistently encountered median nerve/artery/vein, complicating proximal exposure.
  • CLA allowed better access to proximal radius for locking plate application, which may benefit MIPO techniques.
  • CLA also enables ulna fixation via the same incision, whereas CMA requires a separate skin incision.
  • Anatomical tilt of the proximal cranial surface favored CLA, requiring less plate contouring than CMA for proper fit.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Lin 2025 et al., on surgical approaches to the radius, which measurement was significantly greater for CLA at the P2 site?

A. Surface length
B. Total length
C. Width of exposure
D. Depth of dissection
E. Muscle dissection time

Answer: Width of exposure

Explanation: CLA had wider exposure proximally (P2), supporting easier plate placement.
In Lin 2025 et al., on surgical approaches to the radius, how did the anatomical tilt of the radius affect approach selection?

A. CMA fit naturally over radius
B. CMA required no contouring
C. CLA followed natural tilt, needed less plate twist
D. CLA risked screw misalignment
E. CLA caused valgus deformity

Answer: CLA followed natural tilt, needed less plate twist

Explanation: CLA matched lateral tilt of proximal radius, reducing need for proximal plate contouring.
In Lin 2025 et al., on surgical approaches to the radius, which approach provided significantly more surface exposure?

A. Craniomedial approach
B. Craniocaudal approach
C. Caudolateral approach
D. Craniolateral approach
E. Medial approach

Answer: Craniolateral approach

Explanation: The CLA exposed significantly more radial surface area than CMA.
In Lin 2025 et al., on surgical approaches to the radius, what was the main neurovascular difference noted between CLA and CMA?

A. CMA avoided all neurovascular bundles
B. CMA included radial nerve exposure
C. CLA required vein ligation
D. CMA encountered median neurovascular structures
E. CLA was more invasive

Answer: CMA encountered median neurovascular structures

Explanation: Median nerve/artery/vein were encountered only during CMA.
In Lin 2025 et al., on surgical approaches to the radius, which benefit did CLA offer over CMA regarding ulna fracture fixation?

A. CLA limited ulna access
B. CLA allowed shared incision for ulna
C. CMA allowed better ulna view
D. CMA required less muscle retraction
E. CMA was preferred for both bones

Answer: CLA allowed shared incision for ulna

Explanation: CLA permitted ulna fixation via same skin incision, unlike CMA.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Get Instant Access

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology Journal Issue

Guénégo

 et al: 

Modified Cranial Closing Wedge Osteotomy (AMA-Based CCWO) to Treat Cranial Cruciate Ligament Deficient Stifle in 204 Dogs Over 50 Kg

Lin

 et al: 

Does the Craniolateral Approach Provide Better Exposure to the Radius than the Craniomedial Approach for Internal Fracture Fixation in Dogs?

Sullivan

 et al: 

Biomechanical Comparison of Spacer Pin Fixation to Two Established Methods of Tibial Tuberosity Transposition Stabilization in Dogs

Trefny

 et al: 

Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

Cheon

 et al: 

Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs