Quiz Question

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.

šŸ” 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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Whitney 2022 et al., on CBLO fixation strength, regarding biomechanical testing of CBLO constructs, what was the main mode of failure in constructs using only a plate and pin?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Plate-only constructs failed by tuberosity displacement followed by fracture at the most cranial screw.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Displacement of tibial tuberosity then fracture at cranial screw.
Plate-only constructs failed by tuberosity displacement followed by fracture at the most cranial screw.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • CBLO fixation with both a headless compression screw (HCS) and tension band (TB) showed the highest yield and ultimate loads compared to other configurations
  • HCSTB constructs had significantly higher yield load (1212 N) and ultimate load (1388 N) than Plate alone (788 N, 774 N), HCS alone (907 N, 927 N), or TB alone (1016 N, 1076 N)
  • No difference in construct stiffness was detected among the four fixation methods tested
  • All constructs ultimately failed by bone fracture—location of failure differed by construct type (e.g., through HCS hole or cranial screw hole)
  • TB and HCSTB groups showed failure via progressive TB stretching and cranial osteotomy widening, while Plate and HCS failed more abruptly
  • All constructs withstood forces exceeding expected quadriceps load in vivo (170–325 N), suggesting all methods can resist physiological loading, but HCSTB provides greater safety margin
  • HCS alone was not significantly stronger than Plate or TB alone, questioning its standalone superiority
  • Study supports using TB and HCS together for optimal construct strength, but clinical studies are needed to validate implant fatigue, healing, and failure rates

Whitney

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of four Center of Rotation Angulation Based Leveling Osteotomy fixation methods

2022-1-VS-whitney-2

Article Title: Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of four Center of Rotation Angulation Based Leveling Osteotomy fixation methods

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Planchamp 2022 et al., on imaging-based AAI diagnosis, what was the cutoff value of the VCI in dogs imaged in flexion?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. VCI ≄0.20 in flexion yielded 100% sensitivity and 96.67% specificity for diagnosing AAI.
Incorrect. The correct answer is ≄0.20.
VCI ≄0.20 in flexion yielded 100% sensitivity and 96.67% specificity for diagnosing AAI.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Ventral Compression Index (VCI) ≄0.16 (extension) or ≄0.2 (flexion) was diagnostic for AAI with 100% sensitivity and >94% specificity
  • VCI had the highest diagnostic accuracy among all measured variables (AUC > 0.99)
  • C1-C2 overlap ≤2.7 mm (extension) or ≤1.8 mm (flexion) also diagnostic for AAI (sensitivity 84–96%, specificity 81–90%)
  • C1-C2 angle ≄176.9° (extension) or ≄187.4° (flexion) had high sensitivity and specificity (~95%)
  • Basion-dens interval ≄5.9 mm (extension) or ≄3.0 mm (flexion) provided moderate diagnostic accuracy
  • Cranial translation ratio (CTR) ≄0.18 classified dogs as potentially unstable (sensitivity 90%, specificity 78%)
  • VCI ≄0.23 reliably differentiated AAI from potentially unstable cases (sensitivity 94%, specificity 94%)
  • DALR ≤0.24 had high specificity (100%) but low sensitivity for AAI diagnosis

Planchamp

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Determination of cutoff values on computed tomography and magnetic resonance images for the diagnosis of atlantoaxial instability in small-breed dogs

2022-4-VS-planchamp-2

Article Title: Determination of cutoff values on computed tomography and magnetic resonance images for the diagnosis of atlantoaxial instability in small-breed dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In De Moya 2023 et al., on femoral pinning outcomes, which finding was associated with reduced success of FGPP?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Fractures with mild displacement had better outcomes and higher success with closed reduction.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Moderate to severe fracture displacement.
Fractures with mild displacement had better outcomes and higher success with closed reduction.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • FGPP (fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning) resulted in successful healing in 10/13 fractures, with good limb function.
  • Complications occurred in 5 of 11 cases, including intra-articular implants, malunion, implant failure/nonunion, and implant migration.
  • Cases with delayed surgery (>15 days) or radiographic remodeling were more likely to experience major complications.
  • Most fractures (10/13) were classified as Salter-Harris type I with mild displacement.
  • Median surgical time was 60 minutes, and no conversions to open surgery were needed.
  • Postoperative femoral neck resorption was minimal, suggesting possible benefits of the minimally invasive approach for preserving vascular supply.
  • One intra-articular pin led to progressive joint disease and required femoral head ostectomy.
  • FGPP appears best suited for acute, minimally displaced fractures in young dogs (<8 months) with planned elective explant to avoid growth disturbance.

De Moya

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Closed reduction and fluoroscopic‐guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

2023-6-VS-demoya-3-f5012

Article Title: Closed reduction and fluoroscopic‐guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Marshall 2022 et al., on fracture healing in dogs, how did **radius and ulna fractures in toy breeds** perform regarding delayed or non-union?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found no increased odds of poor healing in toy breed radius/ulna fractures.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Were no more likely to result in delayed or non-union.
The study found no increased odds of poor healing in toy breed radius/ulna fractures.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Delayed union occurred in 13.9% of fractures; non-union in 4.6%; mal-union in 0.7%
  • Major implant failure increased odds of delayed or non-union by 12.9Ɨ
  • Surgical site infection increased risk 3.2Ɨ; bone grafting (any type) was also associated (OR 3.3)
  • Comminuted fractures had 4.2Ɨ greater odds of delayed or non-union
  • Older age increased risk, with odds increasing by 21% per year
  • Radius and ulna fractures in toy breeds were not high risk, contrary to historical belief
  • Most non-unions required revision surgery with rhBMP-2 or autograft to achieve union
  • Ilium fractures showed 0% delayed/non-union — possibly due to robust muscle envelope

Marshall

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Delayed union, non-union and mal-union in 442 dogs

2022-7-VS-marshall-2

Article Title: Delayed union, non-union and mal-union in 442 dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Berger 2023 et al., on elbow COR estimation, how did the COR in FMCP elbows compare to normal elbows?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CT-based analysis showed that the COR in FMCP elbows shifted caudally compared to normal.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It was more caudal.
CT-based analysis showed that the COR in FMCP elbows shifted caudally compared to normal.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • COR of elbows with FMCP was significantly more caudal compared to normal elbows, based on CT-derived geometry.
  • In normal elbows, 74% of medial and 93% of lateral axes exited cranial and distal to the epicondyles.
  • In FMCP elbows, 81% of medial and 70% of lateral axes exited caudal and distal to the epicondyles.
  • Different landmark combinations produced slightly different COR approximations, especially between humeral vs. radius/ulna-based axes.
  • The medial-lateral axis using trochlea and capitulum centers provided the most consistent COR approximation.
  • COR estimations based on diseased elbows may not match normal joint geometry, impacting implant alignment accuracy.
  • External epicondylar landmarks may be useful intraoperatively to estimate COR location, but variability limits precision.
  • Drill diameter size may buffer small COR differences, but impact in advanced disease or bilateral cases remains unclear.

Berger

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

The use of subchondral bone topography to approximate the center of rotation of the elbow joint in dogs

2023-1-VS-berger-2

Article Title: The use of subchondral bone topography to approximate the center of rotation of the elbow joint in dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Anderson 2023 et al., on French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fractures, what percentage of French Bulldogs had a humeral intracondylar fissure (HIF) in the contralateral limb when CT was performed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. HIFs were found in 58.1% of dogs with available contralateral CT data.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 58%.
HIFs were found in 58.1% of dogs with available contralateral CT data.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Lateral humeral condylar fractures (LHCF) were most common, comprising 63.6% of cases.
  • Transcondylar screw (TCS) + K-wire(s) fixation had a 7.62x higher risk of major complications compared to other methods (p = .009).
  • All cases of TCS migration occurred in the TCS + K-wire group; none occurred with plate fixation.
  • Overall complication rate was 40.9%, with 29.5% being major and requiring intervention.
  • Contralateral humeral intracondylar fissures (HIF) were found in 58.1% of French Bulldogs with CT data.
  • No significant association between age and presence of HIF, but fissure length increased with age (R = 0.47, p = .048).
  • Younger, lighter dogs had higher complication and screw migration rates, possibly due to softer bone and smaller condyles.
  • TCS + plate fixation had the lowest complication rate, suggesting biomechanical superiority.

Anderson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

2023-1-VS-anderson-4

Article Title: Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, what percentage of fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 13/15 fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction; the rest were acceptable.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 87%.
13/15 fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction; the rest were acceptable.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • The study was a prospective clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed, patient-specific reduction system for aligning diaphyseal tibial fractures stabilized using minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in fifteen client-owned dogs.
  • Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and fabrication were feasible within a clinically relevant timeframe, with a mean of 50.7 hours. Surgical efficiency improved with experience.
  • Pin-guide placement was accurate, with median translational discrepancies of 2.7 mm (proximal) and 2.9 mm (distal), and angular discrepancies highest in the axial plane.
  • The proximal guide was easier to apply (median Likert score: 8) than the distal guide (median: 6).
  • The 3D-printed system enabled near-anatomic reduction in 87% of cases and acceptable reduction in the remaining 13%; no unacceptable reductions occurred.
  • Postoperative alignment and tibial length were well-restored, with all dogs within 5° or 5 mm of contralateral measurements.
  • Temporary circular fixation was occasionally used to assist reduction and improve alignment.
  • Precontoured plates fit easily, with a median Likert score of 9; total surgical time was shorter than conventional MIPO at the institution.
  • The study lacked a control group but builds on prior cadaveric feasibility work.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

6

2024

Efficacy of virtual surgical planning and a three‐dimensional‐printed surgical guide for canine segmental mandibular reconstruction in a cadaver model

2024-6-VS-scheuermann1-2

Article Title: Efficacy of virtual surgical planning and a three‐dimensional‐printed surgical guide for canine segmental mandibular reconstruction in a cadaver model

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Turner 2025 et al., on TPA changes after SH-1/2 fracture repair, what was the average decrease in tibial plateau angle between injury and first reevaluation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found a mean decrease of 5.89° from injury to first reevaluation (p < 0.001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 5.9°.
The study found a mean decrease of 5.89° from injury to first reevaluation (p < 0.001).

šŸ” Key Findings

  • TPA decreased significantly from preoperative to follow-up (mean 5.89°; p < 0.001), and from immediate postoperative to follow-up (mean 2.2°; p = 0.018)
  • Use of tension band in addition to K-wires did not significantly improve TPA reduction compared to K-wires alone
  • Cranial K-wire positioning may attenuate growth at the cranial tibial physis, allowing relative caudal growth to reduce TPA over time
  • Dynamic TPA reduction may reduce risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture even when initial TPA is high
  • Small breeds (e.g., French Bulldogs) were overrepresented; further research is needed in larger breeds with more growth potential
  • Surgical reduction is difficult, but perfect alignment may not be essential if TPA reduces postoperatively
  • Radiographic TPA measurement was reliably performed with low interobserver variability
  • K-wire removal at 3–8 weeks may facilitate continued growth in growing dogs

Turner

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

5

2025

Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

2025-5-VCOT-turner-1

Article Title: Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

In Condon 2024 et al., what percentage of fractures were classified as lateral humeral condylar fractures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Lateral fractures made up 69.8% of the 136 elbows in the study:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 70%.
Lateral fractures made up 69.8% of the 136 elbows in the study:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • Lateral humeral condylar fractures = 69.8% of cases; medial = 16.2%; Y/T = 14.0%
  • Falls/stairs were the inciting trauma in 45.6% of cases; significantly younger dogs were more likely to fracture after major trauma (p = 0.01)
  • Complication rate = 22% (10 major, 20 minor); implant migration and seroma most common
  • Fixation method had no significant impact on complication rates (p = 0.87)
  • Epicondylar comminution was significantly associated with complications (p = 0.02, OR = 3.27)
  • Contralateral intracondylar fissure found in 9.8%, none progressed to fracture during study
  • Wide inter-center variation in complication rate (5–62%, p = 0.002)

Condon

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs—Inciting Cause and Factors Influencing Complications of Internal Fixation in 136 Dogs

2024-2-VCOT-condon-2

Article Title: Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs—Inciting Cause and Factors Influencing Complications of Internal Fixation in 136 Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

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

Quiz Results

Topic: Fracture Management
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

āŒ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

āœ… 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.