Quiz Question

In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what mechanical outcome was observed across **all test constructs**, regardless of tee presence?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All constructs failed by plastic deformation, with no screw or substitute bone failures.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Plastic deformation of plate.
All constructs failed by plastic deformation, with no screw or substitute bone failures.

🔍 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-3

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 Deprey 2022 et al., on gap fracture implants, which material was the NAS-ILN made of?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The NAS-ILN was made from titanium alloy (Ti6Al-4V ELI), offering favorable biomechanics and biocompatibility.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Titanium alloy.
The NAS-ILN was made from titanium alloy (Ti6Al-4V ELI), offering favorable biomechanics and biocompatibility.

🔍 Key Findings

  • NAS-ILN had significantly greater stiffness in both axial compression and 4-point bending compared to LCP constructs.
  • Ultimate load to failure was significantly higher for NAS-ILN in compression (804 N vs 328 N) and bending (25.7 Nm vs 16.3 Nm).
  • Torsional stiffness and angular deformation were similar, but NAS-ILN resisted higher torque to failure than LCP (22.5 Nm vs 19.1 Nm).
  • No slack was observed with the NAS-ILN construct, unlike older nail designs.
  • Failure modes differed: LCPs failed via plate bending; NAS-ILNs failed at the implant or bone near screw holes.
  • Titanium alloy and curved design of NAS-ILN provides better anatomic fit and more uniform stress distribution.
  • A third, perpendicular locking hole in NAS-ILN may enhance torsional stability but was not utilized in this study.
  • The curved, angle-stable design of NAS-ILN is a novel advancement in veterinary orthopedics.

Deprey

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Mechanical evaluation of a novel angle‐stable interlocking nail in a gap fracture model

2022-8-VS-deprey-4

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of a novel angle‐stable interlocking nail in a gap fracture 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 Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, which of the following was a limitation of the universal guide?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The universal guide struggled with fit in small dogs due to its one-size design.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Single-size design may not suit all dogs.
The universal guide struggled with fit in small dogs due to its one-size design.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both patient-specific and universal guides yielded correction errors <2°, with no statistically significant difference in accuracy.
  • Universal guide corrected aLDFA up to 24° and AA up to 20°, addressing multiplanar deformities effectively.
  • Patient-specific guides allowed for preoperative simulation, providing more stable pin placement and potentially aiding less-experienced surgeons.
  • Universal guide eliminated the need for CT-based customization, reducing time and cost.
  • Cadaver and bone model trials showed consistent accuracy, validating both methods in vitro and ex vivo.
  • No significant differences in outcome when correcting uniplanar (aLDFA) vs biplanar (aLDFA + AA) deformities.
  • Universal guide's fixed size presented limitations in small dogs, potentially requiring multiple size options.
  • Universal guide showed potential for standard use, offering repeatable outcomes with minimal prep despite needing precise intraoperative placement.

Cheon

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs

2025-3-VCOT-cheon-4

Article Title: Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in 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 Trefny 2025 et al., on plate length and stiffness, strain in the bone model adjacent to the plate end was significantly lower in which configurations?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. ROI7 strain in the bone model was lower in 10- and 12-hole vs 6-hole constructs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 10-hole and 12-hole.
ROI7 strain in the bone model was lower in 10- and 12-hole vs 6-hole constructs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 12-hole LCPs (80% plate–bone ratio) showed significantly higher construct stiffness than 6-, 8-, or 10-hole plates in both compression and tension bending.
  • Strain on the plate was significantly lower in 12-hole vs 6-hole plates at all regions of interest (ROIs), especially around the fracture gap.
  • No incremental increases in stiffness or decreases in strain were observed between 6-, 8-, and 10-hole plates—only when comparing to 12-hole plates.
  • Bone model strain adjacent to the plate end was significantly lower for 10- and 12-hole plates vs 6-hole plates under both loading conditions.
  • The threshold effect suggests biomechanical benefits only emerge beyond a plate–bone ratio of ~80%.
  • Working length increased from 9.4 mm (6-hole) to 13 mm (others), potentially influencing strain/stiffness differences.
  • Four-point bending was used, as it replicates the most biomechanically relevant force on plated long bones.
  • Clinical implication: Longer plates may reduce plate strain and peri-implant bone strain, potentially lowering risk of fatigue failure or stress risers.

Trefny

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

Effect of Plate Length on Construct Stiffness and Strain in a Synthetic Short-Fragment Fracture Gap Model Stabilized with a 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

2025-2-VCOT-trefny-3

Article Title: Effect of Plate Length on Construct Stiffness and Strain in a Synthetic Short-Fragment Fracture Gap Model Stabilized with a 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 Sisk 2024 et al., on intramedullary nails, what biomechanical property is most affected by increasing nail diameter?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Stiffness increases with the 4th power of diameter (∝ D⁴), greatly improving resistance to deformation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Torsional and bending stiffness.
Stiffness increases with the 4th power of diameter (∝ D⁴), greatly improving resistance to deformation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • IMN provides relative stability, resists bending/torsion due to central axis alignment
  • Larger diameter nails = exponentially greater stiffness (∝ D⁴)
  • Trade-off: Larger interlocking holes weaken fatigue strength of the nail
  • Reaming increases contact/stability but has pros/cons:
    • Improves outcomes in closed fractures
    • May reduce endosteal blood flow in thin-walled bones (e.g., cats)
  • Design advances:
    • Angle-stable IMN reduce rotational slack
    • Expandable nails simplify insertion but may compromise removal or compressive load resistance
    • Precontoured nails match bone curvature but lack consistent clinical superiority
  • Material debates continue (e.g., titanium vs. stainless steel vs. magnesium)

Sisk

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

2024-6-VCOT-sisk-1

Article Title: Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

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 Miller 2024 et al., on SOP-LC mechanical testing, which configuration improved initial torsional stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Alternating clamps significantly improved torsional stiffness despite lower bending strength.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Alternating clamp placement.
Alternating clamps significantly improved torsional stiffness despite lower bending strength.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • No significant difference in mechanical properties between contoured vs non-contoured SOP-LC rods
  • Clamp configuration significantly influenced mechanical performance:
    • Single-side clamps → ↑ yield load, ↑ displacement, ↑ bending strength (p < 0.05)
    • Alternating-side clamps → ↑ initial torsional stiffness (p = 0.029)
  • Clamp slippage was evident only in torsional tests; screw loosening may be torque-dependent
  • Mild screw bending and construct offset suggest subtle instability
  • Recommends clamp configuration choice based on loading scenario
  • Suggests 3.0 Nm torque may be more effective than 2.5 Nm to prevent clamp slippage

Miller

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Mechanical Testing of Sliding on Pivot-Locking Clamp (SOP-LC) Fracture Repair System in Four-Point Bending and Torsion

2024-4-VCOT-miller-3

Article Title: Mechanical Testing of Sliding on Pivot-Locking Clamp (SOP-LC) Fracture Repair System in Four-Point Bending and Torsion

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 Smith 2024 et al., on ergonomics and preferences in veterinary laparoscopy, which laparoscopic instrument was reported as the most difficult to use overall?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. This instrument had a median difficulty score of 4/10 and a 25% difficulty rate.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Endoscopic stapler.
This instrument had a median difficulty score of 4/10 and a 25% difficulty rate.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Surgeons with smaller glove sizes experienced more difficulty using laparoscopic instruments, especially endoscopic staplers, cup biopsy forceps, and vessel sealing devices.
  • Endoscopic stapler was rated the most difficult instrument, with a median difficulty score of 4/10 and 25% usage difficulty.
  • Female surgeons reported significantly more difficulty with several instruments due to smaller glove size.
  • Reusable instruments were preferred over disposable ones for all tasks.
  • Pistol grips were preferred for grasping/retracting and fine dissection, while axial grips were preferred for suturing/knot tying.
  • Articulating handles were consistently associated with increased reported difficulty, especially with scissors and cup biopsy forceps.
  • Left-handed surgeons had more difficulty operating endoscopic staplers, suggesting limited design inclusivity.
  • Surgeons in academic settings reported more difficulty with laparoscopic maneuvers than those in private practice.

Smith

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Variables affecting surgeons’ use of, and preferences for, instrumentation in veterinary laparoscopy

2024-3-VS-smith-1

Article Title: Variables affecting surgeons’ use of, and preferences for, instrumentation in veterinary laparoscopy

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 Gomes 2025 et al., on subdural shunting for TL-AD, what was the guideline for selecting shunt tube size?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. This ensured the tube did not compress the spinal cord; most dogs used 3–3.5 Fr tubing.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Based on 25% of spinal cord diameter at the lesion site.
This ensured the tube did not compress the spinal cord; most dogs used 3–3.5 Fr tubing.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Modified subdural shunt (SDS) placement was adapted from prior techniques using a hemilaminectomy approach and no suturing of the dura or shunt.
  • Dogs receiving SDS had significantly better long-term outcomes (85.7% improved) compared to those with durotomy alone (41.7%).
  • Recurrence rate was lower in the SDS group (14.3%) than control (41.7%), though not statistically significant.
  • Most recurrences occurred in Pugs (5/7), suggesting a breed predisposition.
  • Shunt size was limited to 25% of spinal cord diameter, typically 3–3.5 Fr.
  • CSF flow through the shunt was confirmed intraoperatively, supporting the role of SDS in maintaining flow and possibly preventing recurrence.
  • Immediate postoperative outcomes were not different between groups (≈42% deteriorated), but long-term recovery was better with SDS.
  • Steroid use pre-surgery did not correlate with improved outcome; fewer SDS dogs received steroids pre-op.

Gomes

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement in dogs

2025-5-VS-gomes-4

Article Title: Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement 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 Walter de Bruyn 2024 et al., how did orthogonal plate application affect strain in four-point bending?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Orthogonal plates significantly reduced plate strain across all working lengths in bending:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Decreased it.
Orthogonal plates significantly reduced plate strain across all working lengths in bending:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Primary 3.5-mm LCP used with short (SWL), medium (MWL), and long (LWL) working lengths
  • Addition of orthogonal 2.7-mm LCP resulted in:
    • Significantly higher bending stiffness for SWL, MWL, and LWL (p < 0.0001)
    • Higher torsional stiffness for MWL and LWL (not for SWL)
    • Significantly lower strain across all working lengths in bending (p < 0.01)
  • Working length inversely related to construct stiffness and directly to plate strain
  • Orthogonal plates eliminated stiffness differences across working lengths in bending
  • Suggests orthogonal plates can improve implant fatigue life and allow compensation when short working lengths are unachievable

Walterdebruyn

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Effect of an Orthogonal Locking Plate and Primary Plate Working Length on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in an In vitro Fracture-Gap Model

2024-4-VCOT-walterdebruyn-2

Article Title: Effect of an Orthogonal Locking Plate and Primary Plate Working Length on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in an In vitro Fracture-Gap Model

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 David 2024 et al., on single-port cryptorchidectomy, why was a 6 mmHg capnoperitoneum preferred?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 6 mmHg was found sufficient for caudal visualization without compromising space.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It maintained adequate workspace with minimal pressure.
6 mmHg was found sufficient for caudal visualization without compromising space.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Single-port laparoscopic-assisted cryptorchidectomy (SP-LAC) was feasible in 13/14 dogs with abdominal cryptorchidism.
  • Median surgical time was 17 min for unilateral and 27 min for bilateral cryptorchidectomy.
  • All testes were successfully exteriorized through a 15-mm mini-celiotomy in most dogs; only 2 needed slight enlargement.
  • One major complication occurred (testicular artery hemorrhage, requiring conversion to open surgery).
  • Two minor complications involved trocar-related issues (splenic capsule laceration, capnoretroperitoneum).
  • No incisional complications were reported postoperatively; some dogs had mild dermatitis at the clipped site.
  • The technique requires only one surgeon and no advanced tools beyond a single-port endoscope.
  • Low-pressure capnoperitoneum (6 mmHg) was adequate for visualization in most cases.

David

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Single-port laparoscopic-assisted abdominal cryptorchidectomy in 14 dogs

2024-3-VS-david-5

Article Title: Single-port laparoscopic-assisted abdominal cryptorchidectomy in 14 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Material Science & Engineering Concepts
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.