Quiz Question

In Story 2024 et al., on eTPA osteotomy comparison, which technique resulted in the **greatest mechanical axis shift**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group A (CBLO + CCWO) caused the largest change in mechanical cranial distal tibial angle (mCrDTA), indicating the most mechanical axis shift.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CBLO + CCWO.
Group A (CBLO + CCWO) caused the largest change in mechanical cranial distal tibial angle (mCrDTA), indicating the most mechanical axis shift.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Population: 16 dogs (27 tibias), TPA >34°
  • Techniques analyzed:
    • Group A: CBLO + CCWO
    • Group B: TPLO + CCWO
    • Group C: mCCWO
    • Group D: PTNWO
  • Outcomes:
    • All groups achieved post-correction TPA < 14°.
    • Group A: Slight over-correction (mean TPA 10.47°); greatest mechanical axis shift.
    • Group B: Tibial shortening (~0.58%); least mechanical axis shift.
    • Group C: Lowest post-correction TPA (mean 4.76°); under-correction.
    • Group D: High accuracy, minimal shortening (mean 7.09° post).
  • Statistical Significance:
    • Significant differences in tibial length change and mCrDTA (mechanical axis shift) between groups (p <.05).
    • TPA correction accuracy: Group A (1.02), B (0.95), C (0.89), D (0.98).

Story

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

2024-1-VS-story-1

Article Title: Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Lederer 2025 et al., on MIPO vs ORPS, which fracture type was more common in dogs treated with MIPO?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. MIPO was used in 41% of comminuted fractures vs 16% in ORPS (p = .012).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Comminuted fractures.
MIPO was used in 41% of comminuted fractures vs 16% in ORPS (p = .012).

🔍 Key Findings

Study size: 105 dogs (73 ORPS; 32 MIPO)

MIPO vs ORPS differences:

  • Surgical time: MIPO median 130 min vs ORPS 85 min (p < .001)
  • Explant rate: MIPO 25% vs ORPS 4.1% (p = .003)
  • Time to clinical union: MIPO 85 days vs ORPS 57 days (p = .010)
  • Frontal alignment deviation: MIPO 3.5° vs ORPS 2.0° (p = .047)
  • Comminution more frequent in MIPO (41% vs 16%; p = .012)

Significant predictors for MIPO use: More proximal fracture margin (p = .004), surgeon identity (p < .001)

No significant difference: Sagittal alignment, radial length, union rate, or complication rate by surgeon

Implant preference: Fixin plates used in 84% of MIPO; locking plates more common in ORPS

Lederer

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

2025-4-VS-lederer-2

Article Title: Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Korchek 2025 et al., on fracture gap risk, which postoperative finding was most strongly associated with implant failure in toy breed dogs with radius/ulna fractures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Implant failure was significantly associated with a postoperative fracture gap in the caudal cortex, with an OR of 23.0 and p = .004.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Presence of a fracture gap in the caudal cortex.
Implant failure was significantly associated with a postoperative fracture gap in the caudal cortex, with an OR of 23.0 and p = .004.

🔍 Key Findings

80 toy breed dogs with surgically repaired transverse radius/ulna fractures were analyzed.
Fracture gap in the caudal cortex was present in 46% of cases.
Implant failure rate:

  • 27% in cases with fracture gap
  • 2% in cases without fracture gap

Fracture gap significantly associated with implant failure:

  • OR = 23.0, 95% CI: 2.7–197.9, p = 0.004

Absence of external coaptation also associated with increased implant failure risk:

  • OR = 10.1, 95% CI: 1.1–89.6, p = 0.04

Prolonged external coaptation (>1 week) linked to non-implant complications (skin wounds, osteopenia, osteomyelitis):

  • OR = 5.4, p = 0.04

Plate thickness, type, open screw holes, and working length were not statistically significant predictors of implant failure after multivariable analysis.

Korchek

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Association of fracture gap with implant failure in radius and ulna fractures in toy breed dogs—A multicenter retrospective cohort study

2025-2-VS-korchek-1

Article Title: Association of fracture gap with implant failure in radius and ulna fractures in toy breed dogs—A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Pfeil 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic pinning, what was the median time to radiographic bone union?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Median healing time was 6 weeks, with a range of 4–12 weeks.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 6 weeks.
Median healing time was 6 weeks, with a range of 4–12 weeks.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning (FGNMP) was used to treat 17 animals (15 dogs and 2 cats) with 57 metabone fractures, including various fracture configurations (short-oblique body, physeal, and comminuted).
  • All 57 fractures were stabilized using intramedullary pins via FGNMP. The study exclusively focused on pin fixation and did not include screws or combined fixation techniques.
  • Median surgical time was 54 minutes (range 26–99 min), indicating efficient procedural execution.
  • Radiographic bone union was achieved in all fractures, with a median time to union of 6 weeks (range 4–12 weeks). Union was confirmed in all initially non-united fractures on follow-up.
  • No major complications were reported. A single pressure sore at the olecranon resolved uneventfully, and no pin migration or osteomyelitis was observed.
  • Pin extensions were noted radiographically (e.g., 42% distal subchondral overextension), but were not associated with clinical problems.
  • Fluoroscopic guidance improved implant accuracy and preserved soft tissue, enabling effective fracture alignment and stabilization using this minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) approach.
  • The authors concluded that FGNMP is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive method for a variety of metabone fracture types, yielding quick recovery, fast healing, and good to excellent long-term functional outcomes in all 17 cases.

Pfeil

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

2024-5-VS-pfeil-2

Article Title: Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Lomas 2025 et al., on DPO and dorsolateral subluxation, what plate angle resulted in the greatest increase in DLS score postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The 30° plate yielded the highest mean DLS increase (39.8%) compared to other plate angles.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 30°.
The 30° plate yielded the highest mean DLS increase (39.8%) compared to other plate angles.

🔍 Key Findings

  • DPO significantly improved femoral head coverage, increasing mean DLS from 36.1% to 71.4% postoperatively (p < 0.001).
  • No significant change in DLS between immediate postoperative and follow-up scans, suggesting stable surgical outcomes over time.
  • Greater plate angle (30°) yielded larger DLS improvement (mean increase: 39.8%) compared to 25° and 20° plates.
  • Only 3 hips had post-op DLS scores <55%, indicating most patients had lower risk of osteoarthritis progression.
  • No correlation found between DLS improvement and age, body weight, or side of surgery, suggesting broad applicability.
  • CT was used for DLS measurement in simulated weight-bearing, improving precision over radiographic methods.
  • Major limitations included small sample size, multiple surgeons, and variable sedation vs anesthesia during imaging.
  • DPO confirmed as effective for reducing dorsolateral subluxation, improving coxofemoral joint congruency in dysplastic dogs.

Lomas

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

The Impact of Double Pelvic Osteotomy on Dorsolateral Subluxation in 24 Dogs

2025-2-VCOT-lomas-3

Article Title: The Impact of Double Pelvic Osteotomy on Dorsolateral Subluxation in 24 Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Jourdain 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic fixation of feline SIL, what percentage of screws had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 14 of 17 screw placements (82%) had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body, a threshold for biomechanical stability.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 82%.
14 of 17 screw placements (82%) had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body, a threshold for biomechanical stability.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Minimally invasive fluoroscopic technique yielded median reduction of 94.1% immediately postoperative.
  • Screw purchase ≥60% in sacral body achieved in 82% of cases, with median purchase of 73.3%.
  • One screw exited caudally; no dorsal, ventral, or cranial exits reported.
  • At 7-week follow-up, reduction and purchase slightly declined but remained effective (p = .008 and p = .013).
  • No screw loosening observed, even in suboptimal reductions or purchases.
  • Pelvic canal width and symmetry (PCDR and HCWR) were restored and maintained.
  • Excellent long-term function: FMPI ≥0.98 in 9 of 10 cats; owners reported 10/10 satisfaction.
  • Fluoroscopy enabled accurate screw placement and minimized tissue trauma, contributing to rapid recovery.

Jourdain

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Fluoroscopically-assisted closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of sacroiliac luxations in cats using 2.4 mm headless cannulated compression screws: Description, evaluation and clinical outcome

2024-4-VS-jourdain-2

Article Title: Fluoroscopically-assisted closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of sacroiliac luxations in cats using 2.4 mm headless cannulated compression screws: Description, evaluation and clinical outcome

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Burton 2025 et al., on antebrachial conformation, what is a proposed biomechanical consequence of increased PRUDA?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Increased PRUDA may produce divergent force vectors during weightbearing, stressing the humeral condyle.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased distraction at the capitulotrochlear boundary.
Increased PRUDA may produce divergent force vectors during weightbearing, stressing the humeral condyle.

🔍 Key Findings

  • PRUDA (proximal radio-ulnar divergence angle) and UCORA (ulnar center of rotation of angulation) were significantly greater in Cocker Spaniels with HIF vs those without.
  • PRUDA (p < .001): Group 1 (HIF) vs Group 2 & 3.
  • UCORA (p = .036): Group 1 vs Group 3.
  • Other angles (MPRA, LDRA, PCRA, DCRA, torsion) showed no significant differences.
  • Increased PRUDA and UCORA may lead to divergent load vectors across the humeral condyle, potentially predisposing to stress fracture (HIF).
  • Measurement techniques using CT-based 3D reconstructions were reliable (intraobserver ICC > 0.84).

Burton

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Antebrachial conformation in Cocker Spaniels with and without humeral intracondylar fissure

2025-4-VS-burton-5

Article Title: Antebrachial conformation in Cocker Spaniels with and without humeral intracondylar fissure

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Pfeil 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic pinning, how many metabone fractures were treated across all animals?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A total of 57 fractures were treated using fluoroscopic-guided pinning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 57.
A total of 57 fractures were treated using fluoroscopic-guided pinning.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning (FGNMP) was used to treat 17 animals (15 dogs and 2 cats) with 57 metabone fractures, including various fracture configurations (short-oblique body, physeal, and comminuted).
  • All 57 fractures were stabilized using intramedullary pins via FGNMP. The study exclusively focused on pin fixation and did not include screws or combined fixation techniques.
  • Median surgical time was 54 minutes (range 26–99 min), indicating efficient procedural execution.
  • Radiographic bone union was achieved in all fractures, with a median time to union of 6 weeks (range 4–12 weeks). Union was confirmed in all initially non-united fractures on follow-up.
  • No major complications were reported. A single pressure sore at the olecranon resolved uneventfully, and no pin migration or osteomyelitis was observed.
  • Pin extensions were noted radiographically (e.g., 42% distal subchondral overextension), but were not associated with clinical problems.
  • Fluoroscopic guidance improved implant accuracy and preserved soft tissue, enabling effective fracture alignment and stabilization using this minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) approach.
  • The authors concluded that FGNMP is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive method for a variety of metabone fracture types, yielding quick recovery, fast healing, and good to excellent long-term functional outcomes in all 17 cases.

Pfeil

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

2024-5-VS-pfeil-1

Article Title: Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Loh 2024 et al., on treatment outcomes for CvHL in dogs, what was the most common etiology?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Low-trauma events caused 82.9% of CvHL cases, unlike CdHL which is often MVA-related.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Low-trauma accidents.
Low-trauma events caused 82.9% of CvHL cases, unlike CdHL which is often MVA-related.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Low-trauma events caused 82.9% of CvHL cases; Poodles and poodle-crosses represented 49.4% of cases.
  • Success rate of hobbles (61.8%) was significantly higher than closed reduction alone (10.3%) or Ehmer sling (18.5%).
  • Multivariate analysis found hobbles 7.62x more likely to succeed vs. closed reduction (p = .001).
  • Specialist surgeons had higher success with nonsurgical management (OR: 2.68; p = .047).
  • Older age associated with better outcomes (OR: 1.15 per year; p < .0005).
  • Ehmer sling is not recommended due to high failure and complication rates (60.6%).
  • Toggle rod stabilization had a high surgical success rate (88.2%) with low complication.
  • No link was found between CvHL and hip dysplasia or OA in most cases (only 2/108 showed OA).

Loh

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Caudoventral hip luxation in 160 dogs (2003–2023): A multicenter retrospective case series

2024-4-VS-loh-4

Article Title: Caudoventral hip luxation in 160 dogs (2003–2023): A multicenter retrospective case series

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

In Muroi 2025 et al., on refracture risk, what factor was significantly associated with refracture in dogs **retaining plates**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In the non-removal group, greater positional change of the distal screw (OR 1.79, p=0.04) was linked to refracture.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Amount of position change of the most distal screw.
In the non-removal group, greater positional change of the distal screw (OR 1.79, p=0.04) was linked to refracture.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Refracture occurred in 5.5% of limbs, with higher incidence in the plate removal group (12.5%) vs. non-removal (3.5%).
  • In the non-plate removal group, refractures occurred at the most distal screw site, linked to greater screw position change during growth (OR 1.79, p=0.04).
  • Screw-to-bone diameter ratio (SBDR) >0.4 was a significant risk factor for refracture in the plate retention group.
  • In the plate removal group, refractures occurred at the original fracture site, associated with lower pixel value ratio (bone mineral density) and reduced radial thickness.
  • Implant-induced osteoporosis (IIO) beneath the plate likely contributed to refracture risk after plate removal.
  • Younger age at fracture (<6 months) was associated with higher refracture risk due to ongoing radial growth and shifting screw position.
  • No significant association was found between refracture and plate type (locking vs conventional), fixation method, or ulnar union.
  • Recommendations include careful SBDR sizing, motion restriction, and cautious plate removal decisions in growing dogs.

Muroi

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

A Retrospective Study of Risk Factors Associated with Refracture after Repair of Radial–Ulnar Fractures in Small-Breed Dogs

2025-2-VCOT-muroi-1

Article Title: A Retrospective Study of Risk Factors Associated with Refracture after Repair of Radial–Ulnar Fractures in Small-Breed Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
‍
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍
Mind trying that again?

Quiz Results

Topic: Fracture Management
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

❌ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

âś… Correct! You answered: Answer

Rationale

Author: Journal Name - 2025

Article Title

Key Findings

Something off with this question?
Tell us what needs fixing—drop your note below.

You’re flagging: [question text]

Thanks for your feedback!
We’ll review your comment as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.