ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2026
Comparative cadaveric study of needle and conventional arthroscopy techniques of the feline stifle joint.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesArthroscopy is a well-established diagnostic and therapeutic method for canine stifle pathology; however, its use in cats remains under-reported. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of conventional arthroscopy (CA) and needle arthroscopy (NA) in feline stifles.MethodsPaired stifles from 20 feline cadavers without clinical or radiographic stifle pathology were randomly assigned to two equal groups: CA (1.9 mm, 30°) and NA (1.9 mm, 0°). Arthroscopy was performed by a board-certified surgeon using a three-portal method and predefined evaluation sequence, ending with medial meniscus assessment. In 10 randomly selected stifles from each group, an extra-articular distractor was applied before medial meniscus evaluation. Procedure duration, visualisation quality, surgical difficulty and cartilage lesions were recorded. Periarticular and iatrogenic articular cartilage injuries (IACIs) were assessed via dissection and India ink staining.ResultsNA yielded a lower mean surgical difficulty score, shorter mean arthroscopy duration and higher rate of complete medial meniscus visualisation than CA. No significant differences were found in absolute IACI (CA with distraction [CA-D]: 4.4 ± 2.8 mm
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.