← Articles

Philips et al: Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Overall accuracy of radiography to detect IAIP: 77.9%

Sensitivity: 97.2%
Specificity: 67.6%

False positive rate: 32.4% of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating

Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle had higher misclassification (23.8%) than medial (8.3%)

Most accurate detection: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint (97.2% correct classification)

Least agreement: For implants placed at 0 mm (subchondral level), especially lateral (AC1 = 0.48)

No palpable abnormalities (e.g., crepitus) observed during ROM for any group

No significant difference in detection by specialty field or reviewer qualification

Suggests radiographic misclassification risk and supports considering CT/fluoroscopy in equivocal cases

Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study

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

Philips et al: Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Overall accuracy of radiography to detect IAIP: 77.9%

Sensitivity: 97.2%
Specificity: 67.6%

False positive rate: 32.4% of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating

Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle had higher misclassification (23.8%) than medial (8.3%)

Most accurate detection: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint (97.2% correct classification)

Least agreement: For implants placed at 0 mm (subchondral level), especially lateral (AC1 = 0.48)

No palpable abnormalities (e.g., crepitus) observed during ROM for any group

No significant difference in detection by specialty field or reviewer qualification

Suggests radiographic misclassification risk and supports considering CT/fluoroscopy in equivocal cases

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 Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what percentage of non-penetrating implants were incorrectly classified as penetrating the joint?

A. 16.8%
B. 24.7%
C. 32.4%
D. 38.5%
E. 44.1%

Answer: 32.4%

Explanation: Nearly one-third (32.4%) of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, how did implants placed 2 mm into the joint perform in terms of accurate classification?

A. 55.3% correct
B. 71.8% correct
C. 82.6% correct
D. 97.2% correct
E. 100% correct

Answer: 97.2% correct

Explanation: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint were correctly classified in 97.2% of cases.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, which implant direction was more likely to be misclassified as penetrating the joint?

A. Medial condyle at −2 mm
B. Lateral condyle at −2 mm
C. Medial condyle at 0 mm
D. Medial condyle at 2 mm
E. Lateral condyle at 2 mm

Answer: Lateral condyle at −2 mm

Explanation: Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle were misclassified more often (23.8%).
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what was the overall accuracy of radiography to detect intra-articular implant penetration (IAIP) in the canine stifle?

A. 62.1%
B. 70.4%
C. 77.9%
D. 85.2%
E. 91.3%

Answer: 77.9%

Explanation: The overall accuracy of radiographic IAIP detection in cadaveric canine stifles was 77.9%.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what was the reported sensitivity and specificity of radiography?

A. 85% sensitivity, 82% specificity
B. 90% sensitivity, 71% specificity
C. 97.2% sensitivity, 67.6% specificity
D. 99% sensitivity, 60% specificity
E. 94.5% sensitivity, 76% specificity

Answer: 97.2% sensitivity, 67.6% specificity

Explanation: Radiography showed high sensitivity (97.2%) but moderate specificity (67.6%) in this study.

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

Gant

 et al: 

Influence of skin preparation on surgical site infection and lift of adhesive surgical drapes

Von Pfeil

 et al: 

Outcomes of 11 dogs with short radius syndrome treated with acute arthroscopically assisted ulnar shortening

Price

 et al: 

Evaluation of thoracic duct ligation and unilateral subphrenic pericardiectomy via a left fourth intercostal approach in normal canine cadavers

Folk

 et al: 

Incidence of residual biologic debris and contamination of reused bipolar vessel sealing devices after ethylene oxide sterilization following splenectomy

Latifi

 et al: 

Fascial plane mapping for superficial tumor resection in dogs: Part III – Hindlimb and pelvis