RESUMO
The objective of this study was to determine the influence of two finishing systems (grain- or grass-finishing) on carcass characteristics, meat quality, nutritional composition, and sensory attributes of bison. Bison heifers were assigned to either a grain- or grass-finishing treatment for 130 days prior to slaughter. Carcass measurements, lean color and fat color were recorded. Striploins (M. longissimus lumborum) were collected for analysis of pH, fatty acid profile, cholesterol, proximate analysis, Warner-Bratzler shear force, cook loss, and consumer sensory evaluation. Grain-finished bison heifers had greater (p < 0.01) hot carcass weights, dressing percentage, ribeye area, backfat, and marbling scores compared to grass-finished heifers. Instrumental color values (L*, a*, b*) of the ribeye and a* value of backfat opposite the ribeye were greater (p < 0.01) for grain-finished heifers. Steaks from grain-finished heifers had increased (p < 0.05) crude protein and fat content and decreased (p < 0.01) moisture compared to grass-finished heifers. The grain-finishing system produced steaks with increased (p < 0.01) cholesterol and total fatty acids (mg/g of wet tissue). The grain-finished system produced more tender (p < 0.05) steaks, but consumer sensory ratings did not differ (p > 0.10) between treatments. These data indicate that finishing systems influence bison carcass characteristics, nutritional composition, and meat quality, but do not translate to differences in consumer preferences.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Targeted intervention for subgroups is a promising approach for the management of patellofemoral pain. HYPOTHESIS: Treatment designed according to subgroups will improve clinical outcomes in patients unresponsive to multimodal treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective crossover intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP; n = 61; mean age, 27 ± 9 years) were enrolled. Patients with PFP received standard multimodal treatment 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Patients not responding to multimodal treatment were then classified into 1 of 3 subgroups (strong, weak and tight, and weak and pronated foot) using 6 simple clinical tests. They were subsequently administered 6 further weeks of targeted intervention, designed according to subgroup characteristics. Visual analog scale (VAS), perception of recovery scale (PRS), 5-Level European Quality 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L), and self-reported version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale (S-LANSS) were used to assess pain, knee function, and quality of life before and after the interventions. RESULTS: In total, 34% (n = 21) of patients demonstrated recovery after multimodal treatment. However, over 70% (n = 29/40) of nonresponders demonstrated recovery after targeted treatment. The VAS, PRS, S-LANSS, and EQ-5D-5L scores improved significantly after targeted intervention compared with after multimodal treatment (P < 0.001). The VAS score at rest was significantly lower in the "weak and pronated foot" and the "weak and tight" subgroups (P = 0.011 and P = 0.008, respectively). Posttreatment pain intensity on activity was significantly lower in the "strong" subgroup (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Targeted treatment designed according to subgroup characteristics improves clinical outcomes in patients unresponsive to multimodal treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Targeted intervention could be easily implemented after 6 simple clinical assessment tests to subgroup patients into 1 of 3 subgroups (strong, weak and tight, and weak and pronated foot). Targeted interventions applied according to the characteristics of these subgroups have more beneficial treatment effects than a current multimodal treatment program.