ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of CORA-based levelling osteotomy in the feline stifle: an ex vivo limb press study.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify how increasing axial loads combined with different femoral fixation methods impact simulated quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscle forces. STUDY
designExperimental, non-randomized, ex vivo study.
methodsA custom limb press permitting axial loads of 10%-40% bodyweight with three femoral fixation models was tested with 24 limbs from 12 cats (4 per method). Fixation models were: one-complete hip mobility, two-rigid femoral fixation, three-flexion-extension hip mobility. Femoral angulation to horizontal of 60° ±5° and stifle/hock angulations of 120° ±5° were maintained using turnbuckles. Primary outcomes were bodyweight normalized quadriceps and gastrocnemius forces, and their ratio. Secondary outcomes were radiographic limb angulation and relative foot position for models 2 and 3.
resultsNormalized quadriceps forces increased more with axial load in models 1 and 3 than model 2 (p = .04), whereas normalized gastrocnemius force increased more with model 2 than models 1 and 3 (p = .009). Force ratios were unaffected by axial load (p = .4), but model 2 ratios were lower than models 1 and 3 (p = .007). Femoral angulation did not differ with load (p = .1) or model (p = .9), but both stifle and hock flexed with increasing load (p < .001) but remained largely within target. Relative foot position was mean 3.9 mm more caudal in model 2 than model 3.
conclusionSimulated muscle forces were proportionate to axial load, while rigid femoral fixation negatively affected both forces and ratios. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Retaining hip flexion-extension yields normalized quadriceps forces closer to in vivo values and could improve current ex vivo models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.