Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the outcomes between the four test situations

From: Biomechanical effects of cranial closing wedge osteotomy on joint stability in normal canine stifles: an ex vivo study

 

Craniocaudal displacement in the craniocaudal drawer test (mm)

Control-Intact

Control-CrCLT

CCWO-Intact

CCWO-CrCLT

Extension

1.8 ± 0.69a,c

4.3 ± 0.69a,e

2.9 ± 0.69f

10 ± 0.69c,e,f

135°

2.1 ± 0.69a,c

6.2 ± 0.69a,d,e

2.9 ± 0.69d,f

11 ± 0.71c,e,f

120°

1.9 ± 0.69a,c

6.9 ± 0.69a,d,e

2.8 ± 0.69d,f

12 ± 0.71c,e,f

 

Craniocaudal displacement in the proximal compression test (mm)

Control-Intact

Control-CrCLT

CCWO-Intact

CCWO-CrCLT

Extension

0.15 ± 0.33

1.5 ± 0.33

0.097 ± 0.33

0.22 ± 0.33

135°

0.33 ± 0.33a

3.7 ± 0.33a,d,e

0.16 ± 0.33d

0.85 ± 0.35e

120°

0.31 ± 0.33a

3.8 ± 0.33a,d,e

0.18 ± 0.33d

1.0 ± 0.35e

 

Internal–external range of motion in the internal–external axial rotation test (°)

Control-Intact

Control-CrCLT

CCWO-Intact

CCWO-CrCLT

Extension

46 ± 2.5a,b,c

63 ± 2.5a

63 ± 2.5b,f

75 ± 2.5c,f

135°

67 ± 2.5a,c

76 ± 2.5a

75 ± 2.5f

83 ± 2.6c,f

120°

75 ± 2.5

79 ± 2.5

79 ± 2.5

84 ± 2.6

  1. Data are presented as least square means and standard deviations
  2. CCWO Cranial closing wedge ostectomy, CrCLT Cranial cruciate ligament-transected
  3. a p < 0.05, Control-Intact vs. Control-CrCLT
  4. b p < 0.05, Control-Intact vs. CCWO-Intact
  5. c p < 0.05, Control-Intact vs. CCWO-CrCLT
  6. d p < 0.05, Control-CrCLT vs. CCWO-Intact
  7. e p < 0.05, Control-CrCLT vs. CCWO-CrCLT
  8. f p < 0.05, CCWO-Intact vs. CCWO-CrCLT