Fig. 4

Muscle weight in gram. In all 4 groups a significant difference in muscle weight between the operated and contralateral leg was present (p < 0.001 for all four groups). The control group (mean [SD]; contralateral: 0.56 [0.05]; operated: 0.50 [0.08]) had significantly higher muscle weights in the contralateral and operated leg in comparison with the inflammation (mean [SD]; contralateral: 0.43 [0.05]; p < 0.001; operated: 0.38 [0.07]; p < 0.001) as well as immobilisation and inflammation group (mean [SD]; contralateral: 0.42 [0.07]; p < 0.001; operated: 0.23 [0.04]; p < 0.001). Meanwhile, only in the operated leg a significant difference between the control and immobilisation group (mean [SD]; operated: 0.30 [0.04]; p < 0.001) was present. The immobilisation group showed a significantly higher muscle weight in the contralateral leg (mean [SD]; contralateral: 0.53 [0.04]) in comparison with the inflammation (p < 0.001) as well as immobilisation and inflammation group (p < 0.001) while showing a lower muscle weight in the operated leg in comparison with the inflammation group (p < 0.001) but a higher muscle weight in the operated leg in comparison with the immobilisation and inflammation group (p = 0.001). When comparing the inflammation group to the immobilisation and inflammation group a significantly higher muscle weight in the operated leg was present (p < 0.001). The number of identical symbols at the top of the error bars indicate the significance level: one < 0.05; two < 0.01 and three < 0.001. *Significant difference between the operated and contralateral leg within the same group. ^#Significant difference to the control group for the respective leg. ⁺Significant difference to the immobilisation group for the respective leg. ^§Significant difference to the inflammation group for the respective leg