Quiz Question

In Saitoh 2025 et al., on CTS stabilization, what was the major complication observed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A single major complication occurred: breakage of the CTS.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CTS breakage.
A single major complication occurred: breakage of the CTS.

🔍 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-2

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 Muroi 2025 et al., on refracture risk, what screw-to-bone diameter ratio (SBDR) is suggested as a **threshold** for increased refracture risk in growing dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. An SBDR over 0.4 may weaken bone, especially when screws become relatively large due to growth.
Incorrect. The correct answer is >0.4.
An SBDR over 0.4 may weaken bone, especially when screws become relatively large due to growth.

🔍 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-2

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?

In Jones 2024 et al., on LEAP plate use, what percentage of lateral epicondylar fractures showed radiographic evidence of healing at final follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All lateral epicondylar fractures (53/53) demonstrated evidence of healing on follow-up imaging.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 100%.
All lateral epicondylar fractures (53/53) demonstrated evidence of healing on follow-up imaging.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 62 fractures in 61 dogs (44 lateral condylar, 18 intracondylar); mostly Spaniels
  • LEAP plate used in all cases; minimal intraoperative contouring needed (1 French Bulldog)
  • Overall complication rate: ~33%, mostly minor; 1 amputation due to catastrophic infection
  • Radiographic healing:
    • Lateral epicondylar part healed in 100%
    • Condylar part healed in ~61.5% LCF and ~57.1% ICF
  • Functional outcomes:
    • 87% returned to full limb use
    • Median LOAD score: 2 for LCF, 6.5 for ICF
  • Design adjustments made post-study to strengthen weak zones around 3rd–4th screw holes

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures in Dogs

2024-4-VS-jones-1

Article Title: Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures 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 Nicolas 2024 et al., how was the scapular osteotomy stabilized?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Two locking plates were placed cranial and caudal to the scapular spine:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Double 2.4-mm locking plates.
Two locking plates were placed cranial and caudal to the scapular spine:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • The lateral approach via scapular osteotomy allowed safe access to the T1-2 foramen in a French Bulldog with foraminal disc extrusion.
  • A mini-hemilaminectomy was performed, preserving articular facets.
  • The dog had no neurologic deficits postoperatively, returned to ambulation within 24 hours, and was discharged in 3 days.
  • At 10 months, CT confirmed excellent scapular healing and no recurrence.
  • Double 2.4-mm locking plates provided stable fixation across the scapular spine.
  • The technique avoided thoracic entry or dorsal spine dissection, suggesting a less invasive alternative for select T1-2 foraminal cases.

Nicolas

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

2024-2-VCOT-nicolas-3

Article Title: Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics 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 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 Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, what was the main drawback of femoral head circle methods?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FHC-based methods underestimated cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Underestimated cup size.
FHC-based methods underestimated cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 73 hips from 60 dogs undergoing cementless THR.
Methods evaluated:

  • ACVD/ACOLL (acetabular circle on VD or OLL view)
  • ALVD/ALOLL (acetabular line)
  • FHCVD/FHCOLL/FHCCCHB (femoral head circle)
Findings:
  • Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver consistency were excellent for ACVD and ACOLL.
  • FHC methods consistently underestimated actual cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
  • AC and AL methods had low bias (±0.5 mm) and better predictive value.
  • OA severity negatively affected the accuracy of all measurements (p < .05).
  • Highest predictive accuracy was ~49% using ACVD with rounding down protocol.

Wilson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs

2025-1-VS-wilson-2

Article Title: Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement 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 was the TCTF rate for STS screws placed distal to the osteotomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 14% of STS screws placed distal to the osteotomy exhibited radiographic signs of TCTF.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 14%.
14% of STS screws placed distal to the osteotomy exhibited radiographic signs of TCTF.

🔍 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-4

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 Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, which configuration showed higher construct stiffness in compression bending?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Short working length had significantly higher stiffness than long in compression bending.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Short working length.
Short working length had significantly higher stiffness than long in compression bending.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Short working length constructs had significantly higher stiffness and lower strain than long constructs in compression bending (p = 0.0172).
  • In tension bending, short constructs also had higher precontact stiffness and lower strain, but this reversed after transcortical contact (~150 N).
  • Transcortical contact increased stiffness only in long constructs, producing a bilinear load-displacement curve.
  • Postcontact stiffness was higher in long constructs, but this may not reflect clinical benefit due to risks of high interfragmentary strain.
  • Short working length reduced strain at multiple ROIs under both loading conditions, including over fracture gap (Tables 1–3).
  • Increased working length promoted stress concentration and deformation, especially in compression bending.
  • In vitro benefits of long constructs (via contact stability) may not translate to healing, as repetitive loading could increase plate strain and bone resorption.
  • Plate strain was effectively mapped using 3D digital image correlation, confirming regional strain differences between configurations.

Trefny

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

2025-3-VCOT-trefny-1

Article Title: Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

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 Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, which statement best describes the application of precontoured plates?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Plates were shaped to mirror-image models and were easily applied.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Precontoured to 3D-printed models and fit easily.
Plates were shaped to mirror-image models and were easily applied.

🔍 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-scheuermann1-3

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?

🔥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 Fitzpatrick 2024 et al., on ESF for pelvic fractures in cats, what percentage of cases showed implant loosening on follow-up radiographs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Implant loosening was identified in 16/125 cases (13%) on radiographic follow-up.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 13%.
Implant loosening was identified in 16/125 cases (13%) on radiographic follow-up.

🔍 Key Findings

  • External skeletal fixation (ESF) was successfully applied to a variety of pelvic fracture types in cats, including sacroiliac luxations and ilial body fractures.
  • All fractures achieved radiographic union within 9 weeks, even in comminuted or complex configurations.
  • No intraoperative or long-term complications were reported during the study period.
  • Implant loosening was observed radiographically in 13% of cases, with 8% of pins found to be loose at frame removal.
  • ESF enabled indirect fracture reduction using components as handles, with a limited open approach minimizing soft tissue disruption.
  • No iatrogenic neurological deficits were observed, supporting safe pin placement near neurovascular structures, although some cats presented with pre-existing neurologic signs.
  • No cases required revision surgery, and all cats underwent stabilization solely with ESF as per study inclusion criteria.
  • Postoperative hospitalization ranged from 2 to 5 days, though no comparison to other fixation types was evaluated.

Fitzpatrick

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures in cats

2024-7-VS-fitzpatrick-2

Article Title: External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic 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?

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.