← Articles

Bilmont et al: Assessment of BFX cup version in a three-dimensional model simulating the ventrodorsal radiographic view
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Open face version was significantly greater than truncated face version by 14°–22° (p <.001).
  • Open face version increased linearly with inclination and pelvic extension, while truncated face version remained largely stable.
  • Truncated face version is an unreliable surrogate for open face version.
  • Accurate interpretation of cup version should include both truncated face version and inclination.
  • Canine 3D pelvic model and CT-based simulation used for all measurements.

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?
← Articles

Bilmont et al: Assessment of BFX cup version in a three-dimensional model simulating the ventrodorsal radiographic view
Veterinary Surgery 1, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Open face version was significantly greater than truncated face version by 14°–22° (p <.001).
  • Open face version increased linearly with inclination and pelvic extension, while truncated face version remained largely stable.
  • Truncated face version is an unreliable surrogate for open face version.
  • Accurate interpretation of cup version should include both truncated face version and inclination.
  • Canine 3D pelvic model and CT-based simulation used for all measurements.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Bilmont 2025 et al., on cup version comparison, why is truncated face version considered a poor surrogate for open face version?

A. It is difficult to measure reliably
B. It does not account for femoral canal torsion
C. It requires CT-based estimation
D. It poorly reflects changes from inclination and extension
E. It does not correlate with THR outcome

Answer: It poorly reflects changes from inclination and extension

Explanation: Truncated face version remained mostly unchanged across wide ranges of inclination and extension, unlike open face version.
In Bilmont 2025 et al., on cup version comparison, what best explains the clinical significance of open face version?

A. It guides femoral reaming depth
B. It determines polyethylene thickness
C. It affects femoral stem version
D. It reflects impingement-free motion range
E. It estimates pelvic tilt

Answer: It reflects impingement-free motion range

Explanation: Open face version determines the alignment between the femoral neck and acetabular cup, influencing luxation risk.
In Bilmont 2025 et al., on cup version comparison, which variable most affected open face version without significantly changing truncated face version?

A. Femoral anteversion
B. Cup inclination
C. ALO variation
D. Pelvic symmetry
E. Femoral canal width

Answer: Cup inclination

Explanation: Cup inclination caused open face version to increase linearly, while truncated face version remained relatively stable.
In Bilmont 2025 et al., on cup version comparison, what best describes the relationship between pelvic extension and open face version?

A. It lowers open face retroversion
B. It has no measurable effect
C. It alters only ALO
D. It increases open face retroversion
E. It modifies femoral torsion

Answer: It increases open face retroversion

Explanation: Increasing pelvic extension linearly increased open face version up to 35°, with minimal impact on truncated face values.
In Bilmont 2025 et al., on cup version comparison, what was the typical degree of underestimation when using truncated face version to infer open face version?

A. 2–5 degrees
B. 6–10 degrees
C. 11–13 degrees
D. 14–22 degrees
E. 25–30 degrees

Answer: 14–22 degrees

Explanation: Open face version consistently exceeded truncated face version by 14–22°, depending on inclination and pelvic extension.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Marturello

 et al: 

Accuracy of anatomic 3‐dimensionally printed canine humeral models

Duvieusart

 et al: 

Comparison of three approaches for accessory lung lobectomy in the canine cadaveric model: Intercostal thoracotomy, median sternotomy, and a transdiaphragmatic approach combined with caudal median sternotomy

Barrett

 et al: 

Comparison of two postoperative complication grading systems after treatment of stifle and shoulder instability in 68 dogs

Healy

 et al: 

Significance of incidentally identified bullae and blebs on thoracic computed tomography and prevalence of subsequent pneumothorax in dogs

Danielski

 et al: 

Complications after proximal abducting ulnar osteotomy and prognostic factors in 66 dogs