In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, what best describes the outcome for femoral alignment across both methods?
A. IMP produced more anatomic results than FRS
B. Only FRS achieved acceptable alignment
C. Neither technique was clinically acceptable
D. Both methods achieved near-anatomic alignment
E. Alignment was not assessed
Answer: Both methods achieved near-anatomic alignment
Explanation: Postoperative alignment was within acceptable limits in all but one IMP case; overall results were considered near-anatomic.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, which of the following was significantly different in the FRS group compared to the virtual plan?
A. Frontal plane alignment
B. Sagittal plane alignment
C. Femoral length
D. Femoral rotation
E. All alignment metrics were unchanged
Answer: Sagittal plane alignment
Explanation: FRS resulted in increased recurvatum (median 2.9°; P = .03), but all remained within acceptable range.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, what was a noted limitation of the prototype FRS?
A. It could not be used without fluoroscopy
B. It significantly reduced surgical time
C. It was not customizable to each patient
D. It was too fragile for repeated use
E. It was cumbersome and inefficient
Answer: It was cumbersome and inefficient
Explanation: Authors noted the system was bulky, time-consuming, and difficult to use clinically in its current form.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, which statement about fluoroscopy use is most accurate?
A. Fluoroscopy was not required in either group
B. FRS required more fluoroscopy than IMP
C. IMP required more fluoroscopy than FRS
D. Fluoroscopy time was equal in both groups
E. Fluoroscopy was only used in the FRS group
Answer: IMP required more fluoroscopy than FRS
Explanation: Fewer fluoroscopic images were required in the FRS group compared to the IMP group (median 7 vs 26).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, which reduction system resulted in longer surgical times?
A. Intramedullary pinning (IMP)
B. Fracture Reduction System (FRS)
C. Neither; both were equal
D. Depends on surgeon experience
E. Only the IMP group was timed
Answer: Fracture Reduction System (FRS)
Explanation: FRS procedures were significantly longer than IMP (median 43 vs 29 min; P = .011).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on canine femoral MIPO, which alignment parameter was statistically different from the preoperative virtual plan in the FRS group but remained within near-anatomic range?
A. Frontal plane alignment
B. Sagittal plane alignment
C. Axial plane alignment
D. Femoral length
E. Pelvic rotation
Answer: Axial plane alignment
Explanation: Axial plane deviation was statistically different (P = .04) in FRS but remained <10° (near-anatomic).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on canine femoral MIPO, which reduction method resulted in significantly fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy images?
A. Intraoperative CT guidance
B. Fluoroscopy with universal jig
C. Fracture reduction system (FRS)
D. Intramedullary pin (IMP)
E. Open reduction with visual targeting
Answer: Fracture reduction system (FRS)
Explanation: The FRS group required significantly fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs 26; P = .001).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on canine femoral MIPO, how did precontoured plates based on 3D-printed bone models affect fracture alignment outcomes?
A. Only improved axial alignment
B. Worsened frontal plane alignment
C. Improved alignment only in IMP group
D. Enabled near-anatomic alignment in all specimens
E. Required fluoroscopy to correct alignment intraoperatively
Answer: Enabled near-anatomic alignment in all specimens
Explanation: All cadavers had <10 mm or <5° deviation from the pre-op plan in all planes.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on canine femoral MIPO, what clinical advantage might 3D-printed custom surgical guides offer during MIPO procedures?
A. Reduced need for anesthesia
B. Major reduction in implant cost
C. Improved intra-articular screw positioning
D. Reduced radiation exposure to the surgical team
E. Elimination of need for implants
Answer: Reduced radiation exposure to the surgical team
Explanation: Fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy images were needed with custom guides, reducing radiation risk.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on canine femoral MIPO, what was the most significant drawback observed with the use of the FRS?
A. Unacceptable femoral length reduction
B. Intra-articular implant placement
C. Increased radiation exposure
D. Longer surgical time
E. High rate of hardware loosening
Answer: Longer surgical time
Explanation: FRS procedures had a significantly longer surgical time than IMP (43 vs 29 minutes; P = .011).
