ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2026
Comparative analysis of accuracy and safety in guided versus freehand lateral-to-medial humeral transcondylar drilling.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of three guided humeral transcondylar drilling techniques and the freehand drilling technique based on anatomical landmarks. STUDY
designRandomized block design ex vivo study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Canine cadavers (n = 48; 96 elbows).
methodsElbows were scanned using computed tomography (CT) to manufacture patient-specific three-dimensional (3D)-printed drill guides (3D-PDG) and were randomly assigned to one of four groups: universal aiming device (UAD), fluoroscopy-assisted drilling (FAD), 3D-PDG, and freehand drilling (FHD) performed by two board-certified surgeons. All elbows were CT scanned. Drilled tunnels (DT) were compared with an optimal drilling axis (ODA). Outcome measures included drilling time, DT entry and exit point translations, angulation, distance to the articular surface, and joint infringement.
resultsDrilling technique influenced both entry and exit point translation. Freehand drilling was the fastest and safest method (0% joint infringement). The UAD exhibited the highest incidence of joint infringement (26.1%), followed by 3D-PDG (21.7%) and FAD (4.2%). Most joint infringements were caused by unacceptable (>10°) craniocaudal or proximodistal DT angulation.
conclusionWhen performed by experienced surgeons, FHD is accurate and safe, and may outperform guided techniques. Laterally applied 3D-PDG necessitates specific design modifications to improve stability, as well as surgeon training and feedback. The UAD technique may be adversely affected by the lack of a surgical assistant and by limb position. Fluoroscopy-assisted drilling is accurate, but it results in a longer procedure time and requires equipment that may not be readily accessible. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Experienced surgeons can reliably perform FHD utilizing anatomical landmarks with satisfactory accuracy for humeral condylar drilling.
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.