Quiz Question

In Horwood 2024 et al., on complications in luxoid hip dysplasia, what femoral morphological abnormality was frequently seen and may complicate stem placement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Valgus, medialization of the trochanter, and lateralized cortex were common in LH dogs and can complicate stem positioning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Proximal femoral valgus.
Valgus, medialization of the trochanter, and lateralized cortex were common in LH dogs and can complicate stem positioning.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Luxoid hip dysplasia (LH) was present in 8% of THA cases and significantly increased risk of major complications (p < .001).
  • Intraoperative fissures/fractures were 3x more likely in LH dogs vs non-LH (39% vs 16%, p = .001).
  • Dorsal luxation was more frequent in LH dogs (28% vs 4%, p = .019).
  • Acetabular cup placement with ALO >35° was associated with luxation in LH dogs.
  • Morphologic abnormalities (e.g., femoral valgus, lateralization/medialization of cortices) were common in LH and may complicate implantation.
  • Despite higher risk, 94% of LH dogs achieved satisfactory outcomes after appropriate revisions.
  • Younger age and lighter weight characterized LH dogs (mean age 14.7 months vs 40.9 months, p < .001).
  • All LH dogs were treated with cementless stems; prophylactic cerclage was rarely used.

Horwood

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

2024-4-VS-horwood-4

Article Title: Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

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 Kimura 2025 et al., on mini-THA in <4 kg dogs, which implant strategy was used to reduce risk of femoral fracture during THA in small dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Prophylactic screws and plates were used in cases with instability or over-reaming to prevent fracture:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Use of prophylactic bicortical screw and plate.
Prophylactic screws and plates were used in cases with instability or over-reaming to prevent fracture:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Zurich mini-cementless THA was successful in 9/10 hips in dogs <4 kg, with no lameness at 52 weeks in completed cases.
  • Helsinki Chronic Pain Index significantly improved from a mean of 19.8 to 2.3 at 52 weeks (p = 0.0141).
  • Fluoroscopy improved implant positioning, especially in LCPD and HD cases, aiding in accurate reaming and alignment.
  • Intraoperative complications occurred in 2/10 cases, including acetabular fractures; one case required discontinuation.
  • Prophylactic bicortical screws and reinforcement plates were used in cases with rotational instability or cortical compromise and were effective in preventing loosening/fractures.
  • Medial patellar luxation improved postoperatively in one dog, though recurrence was noted later without surgical correction.
  • No stem or implant loosening or fracture occurred over a mean follow-up of 24.4 months.
  • CT is recommended in preoperative planning, particularly in luxoid hip dysplasia cases with uncertain bone stock.

Kimura

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Long‐term outcomes of 10 dogs weighing less than 4 kg after Zurich mini‐cementless total hip arthroplasty

2025-6-VS-kimura-5

Article Title: Long‐term outcomes of 10 dogs weighing less than 4 kg after Zurich mini‐cementless total hip arthroplasty

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 Paulick 2022 et al., on feline ilial plating, which failure mode occurred in **100% of specimens** using **nonlocking DCP plates**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. DCP constructs consistently failed by screw loosening, unlike locking plates.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Screw loosening.
DCP constructs consistently failed by screw loosening, unlike locking plates.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Locking plates (except ALPS-5) withstood significantly more cycles before failure than nonlocking DCP constructs.
  • ALPS-6.5, LCP, and FIXIN plates endured higher loads and resisted displacement better than DCP and ALPS-5.
  • ALPS-5 plates showed lower bending stiffness than all other constructs (P < .05).
  • DCP constructs failed due to screw loosening, seen in all specimens.
  • Locking constructs failed by bone slicing, affecting 100% of specimens.
  • Catastrophic implant failure (fracture or plastic deformation) occurred only in ALPS-5 group.
  • Plate size and screw-plate interface both influence resistance to cyclic loading in feline ilial fracture repair.
  • Locking plates are preferable for reducing screw pullout, but plate strength (e.g., cross-section) must match loading forces.

Paulick

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Ex vivo comparison of lateral plate repairs of experimental oblique ilial fractures in cats

2022-1-VS-paulick-2

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of lateral plate repairs of experimental oblique ilial fractures in cats

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 Butare-Smith 2022 et al., on cerclage knot biomechanics, which cerclage knot had the **highest initial tension** before testing?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Double-loop had significantly higher resting tension, contributing to better fatigue resistance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Double-loop knot (323 N).
Double-loop had significantly higher resting tension, contributing to better fatigue resistance.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Double-loop cerclage resisted the highest peak load (805 N) and maintained tension longer than twist (488 N) and single-loop (397 N) configurations.
  • Double-loop cerclage sustained 500,000 cycles at 60–80% of peak load in some cases without loosening, outperforming other types.
  • Twist knots loosened rapidly, often within 10 cycles even at low loads (100–390 N).
  • Single-loop knots performed better than twist, with partial resistance up to 100,000 cycles at 160 N, but showed wide variability.
  • All loosening occurred before wire breakage, indicating clinical failure would happen from slack, not fracture.
  • Double-loop cerclage had highest initial tension (323 N) compared to single-loop (124 N) and twist (69 N).
  • Fatigue limit was not identified for twist, since they all loosened early at even 20% of peak load.
  • Clinical recommendation: double-loop cerclage is best for resisting repeated subfailure loading, ideal for fissure prevention or fragment stabilization.

Butare-Smith

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Double-loop cerclage resists greater loads for more cycles than twist and single-loop cerclage

2022-2-VS-butare-smith-3

Article Title: Double-loop cerclage resists greater loads for more cycles than twist and single-loop cerclage

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 Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the most likely advantage of using locking screws during the procedure?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Locking screws provided fixed-angle stability that helped maintain reduction despite longer working length and lack of compression.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Facilitated reduction due to fixed angle mechanics.
Locking screws provided fixed-angle stability that helped maintain reduction despite longer working length and lack of compression.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures using precontoured plates on 3D-printed models is feasible and technically reproducible in dogs.
  • All cadavers had fracture gaps <2 mm and step defects <1 mm, indicating accurate reduction.
  • Sciatic nerve injury was minimal or absent in all cases, supporting potential neuroprotection from indirect approaches.
  • Pelvic angulation was maintained <5°, confirming preservation of alignment post-reduction.
  • Surgical time averaged ~46 minutes in cadavers for both approaches and repair.
  • Clinical case showed good radiographic healing by 8 weeks and full union by 3 months, with early weight-bearing post-op.
  • Use of locking screws improved reduction fidelity, particularly across a broad plate span.
  • 3D printing accelerated surgical planning, though its necessity remains debated due to the availability and cost concerns.

Dalton

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

2023-6-VS-dalton-2-323a1

Article Title: Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

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 Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was concluded about the **clinical significance** of the increased mediolateral stiffness with bending tees?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The absolute difference in stiffness was small (2.08 N/mm), so the clinical impact remains unclear.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Uncertain, likely minimal impact.
The absolute difference in stiffness was small (2.08 N/mm), so the clinical impact remains unclear.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bending tees significantly increased mediolateral bending stiffness, but not craniocaudal stiffness, in plate-bone constructs.
  • Mean mediolateral stiffness was 43.2 N/mm with tees vs. 41.1 N/mm without (p = 0.0042), though the absolute difference was small.
  • No significant differences were found in craniocaudal bending stiffness between constructs with or without tees (p = 0.89).
  • Plastic deformation occurred in all constructs; no screw pull-out or implant breakage was observed.
  • SOP nodes may resist compressive but not tensile deformation, suggesting variable mechanical contributions depending on loading direction.
  • Craniocaudal bending had greater stiffness than mediolateral due to higher area moment of inertia along the node diameter.
  • Clinical relevance of added stiffness from tees remains unclear, warranting further in vivo and cyclic testing.
  • This was the first study to directly test SOP constructs with/without tees over a fracture gap in multiple planes.

Lu

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model

2025-2-VCOT-lu-4

Article Title: Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model

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 Violini 2024 et al., on 3D-guided spinal stabilization in brachycephalic dogs, what percentage of pedicle screws achieved optimal placement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 84% of pedicle screws were fully contained within the pedicle and vertebral body (Grade I):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 84%.
84% of pedicle screws were fully contained within the pedicle and vertebral body (Grade I):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Spinal stabilization with 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides (3D-PSGs) was safe, with no immediate perioperative complications reported.
  • 84% of pedicle screws were optimally placed, and only 0.5% breached the spinal canal, reflecting high placement accuracy.
  • 80% of dogs experienced no neurologic deterioration postoperatively, indicating reliable short-term safety.
  • 3D-PSGs were accurate and reproducible, even across multiple institutions and surgeons.
  • Mid-term outcomes were favorable: all dogs were ambulatory, and 90% had static or improved neurologic signs.
  • 7 of 10 mid-term follow-ups showed abnormal gait, though owners rated lifestyle ≥3/5, suggesting acceptable function.
  • 3D-printed guides enabled precise pedicle screw placement in deformed vertebrae, expanding options in small breeds.
  • One dog suffered a T4 spinous process fracture due to overextension of PMMA cement, emphasizing the need for cement placement caution.

Violini

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

2024-4-VS-violini-1

Article Title: Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

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 Saitoh 2025 et al., on CTS stabilization, which of the following was used in the majority of stabilization procedures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 8 of 12 dogs underwent synthetic ligament reconstruction as the primary repair method.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Synthetic ligament reconstruction.
8 of 12 dogs underwent synthetic ligament reconstruction as the primary repair method.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 12 dogs with medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability (TCI), including 5 working farm dogs.
Procedure: Temporary immobilization using a calcaneotibial screw (CTS) combined with external coaptation (EC).
Stabilization techniques:

  • 3 dogs = primary ligamentous repair
  • 8 dogs = synthetic ligament reconstruction
  • 2 dogs = malleolar fracture repair

Follow-up: Median 31 months (range 4–66); 10 owners completed outcome survey.
Outcomes:

  • All 10 dogs had improved or resolved lameness.
  • All 5 farm dogs returned to work (most at full or substantial capacity).
  • Complication rate: 4 distinct events in 3 dogs (1 major = CTS breakage; 3 minor = bandage-related soft tissue injuries).

Conclusion: CTS + EC provided effective immobilization with low complication rate, and functional outcomes were favorable even in active dogs.

Saitoh

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

2025-1-VS-saitoh-5

Article Title: Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

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 Gollnick 2024 et al., on TCTF risk with Arthrex STS in TPLO, what strategy is recommended to reduce risk of TCTF with angled STS screws?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Using a tap before placing STS (especially when angulation is required) may reduce TCTF development.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Use of a tap before screw insertion.
Using a tap before placing STS (especially when angulation is required) may reduce TCTF development.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 42% of dogs (33/78) treated with Arthrex 3.5 mm STS during TPLO developed radiographic TCTF
  • TCTFs occurred exclusively distal to the osteotomy
  • 14% of screws (36/250) distal to the osteotomy were associated with TCTFs
  • 6% of dogs with TCTFs developed major complications (e.g., complete tibial fracture requiring surgical revision)
  • Angulation of cortical STS screws, especially in the distal plate holes, was a key contributor to complications
  • Locking screws were also involved, but cortical screws angled improperly were overrepresented in serious outcomes
  • Revision recommendations included preemptive fixation for large TCTFs or angulated screw placements
  • Use of non-self-tapping screws (NSTS) previously showed a <1% TCTF rate, supporting higher risk with STS

Gollnick

Veterinary Surgery

6

2024

Tibial fracture associated with use of Arthrex self‐tapping screws during tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs and development of transcortical tibial fracture

2024-6-VS-gollnick-5

Article Title: Tibial fracture associated with use of Arthrex self‐tapping screws during tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs and development of transcortical tibial fracture

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 Fidelis 2025 et al., on suture eyelet geometry, what was the **most common failure location** for sutures in anchors with embedded eyelets?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All embedded eyelet anchor failures occurred at the suture knot, suggesting reduced suture wear.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Suture breakage at knot.
All embedded eyelet anchor failures occurred at the suture knot, suggesting reduced suture wear.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Raised eyelets caused more suture mid-section failures than embedded eyelets, suggesting wear or cutting against the anchor.
  • No significant effect of cyclic loading on failure load (Fmax) was found for any anchor group.
  • Anika anchor showed the least reduction in suture strength relative to the reference (eyebolt screw), indicating a favorable design.
  • All sutures failed via suture breakage, not anchor pullout, indicating suture fatigue was the primary failure mode.
  • Sutures in raised eyelets more often failed at the mid-section, while those in embedded eyelets failed at the knot.
  • IMEX and Jorvet anchors showed significantly reduced Fmax compared to eyebolt screws.
  • Loading direction and anchor design likely affect wear and ultimate failure, particularly in dynamic in vivo conditions.
  • Future designs should aim for embedded, smooth eyelets that can accommodate larger suture sizes without increasing wear.

Fidelis

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Effect of suture anchor type, eyelet configuration, and loading condition on suture failure: An in vitro study

2025-6-VS-fidelis-2

Article Title: Effect of suture anchor type, eyelet configuration, and loading condition on suture failure: An in vitro 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Implant Selection & Configuration
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

❌ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

✅ 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.