ArticleInternational journal of veterinary science and medicine2026
Biomechanical Comparison of Paraosseous Clamp-cerclage Fixation and External Fixators in the Surgical Repair of Long-bone Fractures in Cats.
Article in International journal of veterinary science and medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fractures of the diaphyseal region account for roughly half of all feline long-bone lesions; however, evidence regarding the mechanical performance of alternative fixation systems remains limited. The paraosseous clamp-cerclage stabilization technique (PCCS) is used in cats because its low implant profile suits the small feline tibia, but its behavior under torsional loading-and in comparison with external skeletal fixators (ESF)-has not been previously evaluated. Aims and Objectives: To compare the torsional stiffness of PCCS with two acrylic ESF constructs (Type Ia and Type II) in a feline tibial fracture model. Materials and Methods: Fourteen paired tibiae with intact fibulae from adult cats were collected postmortem. A 5-mm mid-diaphyseal osteotomy was created in each specimen. PCCS was applied to the right tibia of 12 pairs; the contralateral tibiae received ESF Type II. A second cohort of paired limbs was instrumented with ESF Type Ia. Each construct underwent biomechanical testing three times under an axial preload of 0.5 N. Specimens were rotated ±15° at 10° min Results: Twenty-four osteotomized tibiae were analyzed. Mean torsional stiffness was 0.114 Nm/° for ESF Type II, 0.049 Nm/° for PCCS, and 0.045 Nm/° for ESF Type Ia, compared with 0.264 Nm/° in native bone. ESF Type II retained 43.2% of intact stiffness, whereas PCCS and ESF Type Ia each retained approximately 18%. Coefficients of variation were 0.12 (ESF Type II), 0.18 (ESF Type Ia), and 0.52 (PCCS), indicating greater reproducibility for the fixator constructs. ESF Type II was significantly stiffer than PCCS and ESF Type Ia ( Conclusion: PCCS and ESF Type Ia provide comparable but relatively low torsional rigidity, making them suitable for simple, non-comminuted fractures but likely insufficient for stabilizing large segmental defects. ESF Type II provides substantially greater torsional stability, approaching half that of intact bone, and may therefore be more appropriate for bridging comminuted fractures where minimizing interfragmentary strain is essential for bone healing. Selecting the fixation method according to the required torsional stability may help optimize clinical outcomes in feline fracture management.
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.