Mcclean et al: Accuracy and safety of stifle arthrocentesis and injection based on two established and two new landmarks: Ex vivo study in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 2, 2026

Accuracy and safety of stifle arthrocentesis and injection based on two established and two new landmarks: Ex vivo study in dogs

🔍 Key Findings

  • All four arthrocentesis techniques achieved 100% intra-articular accuracy, confirming that each landmark-guided method could successfully access the canine stifle joint.
  • Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) was the most commonly used technique clinically, reported by 87.5% (35/40) of surveyed surgeons.
  • INFRA and SUPRA required significantly more needle repositions (median 3 and 2) compared with LINC and POUCH (median 1) (p = .001).
  • No iatrogenic articular cartilage injury (IACI) occurred with LINC or SUPRA techniques, suggesting favorable safety profiles.
  • INFRA produced the highest IACI rate (75%), with 6/8 limbs affected, indicating substantial risk with this approach.
  • More than half of INFRA injuries exceeded 10 mm² and involved weight-bearing cartilage, raising concern for clinically significant joint damage.
  • POUCH technique caused IACI in 37.5% of cases, but injuries occurred exclusively on non-weight-bearing cartilage.
  • SUPRA (suprapatellar) approach demonstrated accuracy with zero cartilage injury, making it a promising safer alternative for stifle arthrocentesis pending clinical validation.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Mcclean et al: Accuracy and safety of stifle arthrocentesis and injection based on two established and two new landmarks: Ex vivo study in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 2, 2026

🔍 Key Findings

  • All four arthrocentesis techniques achieved 100% intra-articular accuracy, confirming that each landmark-guided method could successfully access the canine stifle joint.
  • Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) was the most commonly used technique clinically, reported by 87.5% (35/40) of surveyed surgeons.
  • INFRA and SUPRA required significantly more needle repositions (median 3 and 2) compared with LINC and POUCH (median 1) (p = .001).
  • No iatrogenic articular cartilage injury (IACI) occurred with LINC or SUPRA techniques, suggesting favorable safety profiles.
  • INFRA produced the highest IACI rate (75%), with 6/8 limbs affected, indicating substantial risk with this approach.
  • More than half of INFRA injuries exceeded 10 mm² and involved weight-bearing cartilage, raising concern for clinically significant joint damage.
  • POUCH technique caused IACI in 37.5% of cases, but injuries occurred exclusively on non-weight-bearing cartilage.
  • SUPRA (suprapatellar) approach demonstrated accuracy with zero cartilage injury, making it a promising safer alternative for stifle arthrocentesis pending clinical validation.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, which technique was reported as the most commonly used by surveyed surgeons?

A. Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) technique
B. Infrapatellar (INFRA) technique
C. Suprapatellar (SUPRA) technique
D. Proximal lateral parapatellar pouch (POUCH) technique
E. Ultrasound-guided suprapatellar approach

Answer: Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) technique

Explanation: The survey of 40 surgeons showed that 87.5% reported using the LINC approach, making it the most commonly used clinical technique.
In Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, what was the overall intra-articular accuracy rate achieved by all four tested techniques?

A. 25%
B. 50%
C. 75%
D. 100%
E. Variable depending on technique

Answer: 100%

Explanation: All four techniques successfully entered the joint space in every cadaver limb tested (8/8 per group), resulting in 100% accuracy.
In Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, where were cartilage injuries caused by the POUCH technique primarily located?

A. Weightbearing femoral condyle cartilage
B. Weightbearing tibial plateau cartilage
C. Non-weightbearing articular cartilage
D. Patellar articular cartilage
E. Meniscal surfaces only

Answer: Non-weightbearing articular cartilage

Explanation: In the POUCH group, cartilage injuries occurred in 3/8 limbs and were exclusively located on non-weightbearing cartilage surfaces.
In Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, which approach produced the highest rate of iatrogenic articular cartilage injury?

A. Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) technique
B. Infrapatellar (INFRA) technique
C. Suprapatellar (SUPRA) technique
D. Proximal lateral parapatellar pouch (POUCH) technique
E. Ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis

Answer: Infrapatellar (INFRA) technique

Explanation: The INFRA approach caused IACI in 6 of 8 limbs (75%), the highest rate among all techniques evaluated.
In Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, which technique demonstrated accurate joint access with no iatrogenic cartilage injury?

A. Infrapatellar (INFRA) technique
B. Proximal lateral parapatellar pouch (POUCH) technique
C. Suprapatellar (SUPRA) technique
D. Craniomedial patellar ligament technique
E. Ultrasound-guided lateral approach

Answer: Suprapatellar (SUPRA) technique

Explanation: The SUPRA technique achieved intra-articular access in all limbs and produced no cartilage injury, suggesting a potentially safer technique.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Something off with this article?
Tell us what needs fixing—drop your note below.
Thanks for flagging this!
We’ll review your note as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Anything to add to this article?
Know a finding or detail we missed? Share it below.
Thanks for the suggestion!
We’ll review it as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.