In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the authors’ recommendation regarding clinical use of the prototype fracture reduction system?
A. Strongly recommend immediate clinical adoption
B. Recommended only in cats
C. Not recommended due to inefficiency
D. Only useful for tibial fractures
E. Only suitable for teaching labs
Answer: Not recommended due to inefficiency
Explanation: Authors noted the system reduced fluoroscopy but was cumbersome and time-consuming, not ready for clinical cases.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what postoperative alignment difference was noted in the FRS group compared to the virtual surgical plan?
A. Increased procurvatum
B. Increased recurvatum
C. Varus malalignment
D. Valgus malalignment
E. Excessive anteversion
Answer: Increased recurvatum
Explanation: FRS use caused a small but significant increase in recurvatum (median 2.9°, *P = .03*).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the main advantage of using the fracture reduction system (FRS) compared to intramedullary pin (IMP) reduction?
A. Shorter surgical duration
B. Reduced intraoperative fluoroscopy use
C. Improved postoperative torsion alignment
D. Lower cost and easier setup
E. No difference was found
Answer: Reduced intraoperative fluoroscopy use
Explanation: FRS procedures required significantly fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, *P = .001*).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, how accurate was alignment overall using precontoured plates from 3D-printed femurs?
A. >15 mm length discrepancy in most cases
B. Median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes
C. Acceptable but not near-anatomic in most cases
D. Only sagittal alignment was accurate
E. Alignment varied widely between cases
Answer: Median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes
Explanation: Precontoured plates from 3D models achieved highly accurate alignment across all planes.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the tradeoff of using the FRS compared with IMP reduction?
A. FRS required more fluoroscopy but was faster
B. FRS caused higher complication rates
C. FRS was slower but required less fluoroscopy
D. FRS eliminated need for preoperative planning
E. FRS caused unacceptable alignment
Answer: FRS was slower but required less fluoroscopy
Explanation: FRS increased surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, *P = .011*) while reducing fluoroscopy.