ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Three-dimensional analysis of femoral tunnel placement in canine cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate femoral tunnel placement is essential for successful anatomical intra-articular reconstruction of the cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL), a standard treatment for anterior cruciate ligament disease in humans. Surgical outcomes are influenced by multiple factors related to tunnel placement, including ligament footprint restoration, tunnel length, and graft bending angle (GBA), among others. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal placement of the femoral tunnel for CrCL reconstruction in dogs. This study aimed to investigate the effects of various femoral tunnel entry (FTE) points on these key parameters to determine favourable tunnel locations for canine CrCL reconstruction.
methodsThe influences of various FTE points were evaluated based on six parameters: footprint coverage, footprint overhang, footprint similarity, tunnel length, tunnel-face angle, and GBA. Three-dimensional femoral models reconstructed from CT scans of 25 canine cadaveric hindlimbs were used to simulate tunnel placement. In addition, tibiofemoral kinematic data from 13 client-owned dogs during treadmill gait were analysed to quantify the GBA associated with each simulated tunnel.
resultsA more proximal extracapsular tunnel aperture relative to Blumensaat's line provided greater footprint coverage, improved similarity, and longer tunnel length. However, along the cranial-caudal axis, a trade-off emerged between these factors and GBA, suggesting that a mid-range position may offer the most balanced compromise.
conclusionPlacing the FTE point proximally is preferable, while a mid-range cranial-caudal position may best balance key factors affecting postoperative outcomes in dogs.
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.