Quiz Question

In Israel 2022 et al., on cerclage wire in THR, what is a biomechanical benefit of cerclage application around the proximal femur?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Studies show cerclage wires increase torsional failure thresholds by about 20%, aiding fracture prevention.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increases peak torque resistance by ~20%.
Studies show cerclage wires increase torsional failure thresholds by about 20%, aiding fracture prevention.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No proximal femoral fractures occurred in any of the 184 hips with cerclage wire placement
  • Cerclage wire was well tolerated, with no failures or complications related to the wire
  • Application of a single cerclage wire took <10 minutes, was cost-effective, and required minimal instrumentation
  • 3 postoperative complications (1 fissure, 2 fractures) occurred distal to the cerclage site, near the stem tip, requiring plate/screw fixation
  • All dogs returned to normal activity, and all owners were satisfied with the outcome
  • Cerclage placement location is critical—must be proximal to the lesser trochanter and close to the calcar to resist hoop strain
  • Biomechanical evidence supports that cerclage wires improve resistance to hoop strain and subsidence of cementless stems
  • Press-fit cementless stems may settle, but when supported by cerclage, this does not result in fractures even in undersized implants

Israel

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Outcome of canine cementless collared stem total hip replacement with proximal femoral periprosthetic cerclage application: 184 consecutive cases

2022-2-VS-israel-5

Article Title: Outcome of canine cementless collared stem total hip replacement with proximal femoral periprosthetic cerclage application: 184 consecutive cases

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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, which biomechanical variables were NOT significantly different between prosthetic and intact femurs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Stiffness (k), displacement at maximum load, and displacement at collapse were not significantly altered by the prosthesis.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Stiffness and displacements.
Stiffness (k), displacement at maximum load, and displacement at collapse were not significantly altered by the prosthesis.

🔍 Key Findings

  • In an ex vivo study of 20 canine femur pairs, implantation of a novel hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) prosthesis reduced maximum load (ML) by 22% and load at collapse (LC) by 27% vs. intact controls (p ≤ 0.05).
  • Displacement at maximum load (DML), displacement at collapse (DC), and stiffness (k) were not significantly different between prosthesis and control groups.
  • Both groups showed similar failure patterns, with 92% failing at the femoral neck.
  • All prosthetic femurs still withstood ~6.2× body weight — exceeding estimated in vivo peak loads (~1.64× BW).
  • Prosthesis positioning (neutral vs valgus) had no significant effect on biomechanical outcomes.
  • Implant design preserved more metaphyseal bone stock than total hip replacement, possibly explaining the smaller load reduction compared to other short-stem prostheses.
  • The press-fit cobalt–chromium design with conical stem allowed full contact and stress distribution over the femoral head/neck.
  • Authors conclude the device has adequate immediate biomechanical strength for clinical use, though long-term in vivo studies are needed.

Perez Neto

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Femoral Implant for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

2025-4-VCOT-perezneto-2

Article Title: Biomechanical Evaluation of a Femoral Implant for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

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 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 Trefny 2025 et al., on plate length and stiffness, which biomechanical testing method was used to measure stiffness and strain?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Four-point bending was applied in two planes to mimic relevant long bone loading.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 4-point bending in compression and tension.
Four-point bending was applied in two planes to mimic relevant long bone loading.

🔍 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-4

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 De Moya 2025 et al., on antebrachial deformity correction, what percentage of the recorded distraction translated to actual radial lengthening?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only 80% of the distraction measured on the fixator resulted in actual bone lengthening, likely due to soft tissue and frame mechanics.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 80%.
Only 80% of the distraction measured on the fixator resulted in actual bone lengthening, likely due to soft tissue and frame mechanics.

🔍 Key Findings

  • CESF with distraction osteogenesis restored elbow congruity and normalized aLDRA in skeletally immature dogs with PCDRP.
  • Radial head subluxation was eliminated in all dogs, and elbow incongruity reduced significantly (from 6.1 mm to 0.3 mm, p <.01).
  • Mean radial lengthening of 22.6 mm (∼11% of normal length) was achieved, but only 80% of recorded distraction translated to length gain.
  • Major complications occurred in 2/12 dogs: one with permanent carpal contracture, one with radial fracture at wire tract.
  • Minor complications (e.g., carpal pain, restricted extension, synostosis, pin tract issues) were noted in 10/12 dogs but generally resolved.
  • Owner surveys (8/12 dogs) reported good to excellent long-term function, even up to 6 years post-op.
  • Radial valgus deformities were moderate (mean 15°) and less severe than deformities from ulnar physeal closure.
  • Surgical strategy included staged distraction, with radial or combined radius/ulna distraction guided by fluoroscopy and adjusted per case.

De Moya

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Treatment of antebrachial deformities secondary to premature closure of the distal radial physis using circular external skeletal fixation and distraction osteogenesis in skeletally immature dogs

2025-6-VS-demoya-2

Article Title: Treatment of antebrachial deformities secondary to premature closure of the distal radial physis using circular external skeletal fixation and distraction osteogenesis in skeletally immature 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 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 Hawker 2025 et al., on locking head inserts, what was the impact of LHI on plate strain in a fracture-gap model?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No statistically significant change in strain was observed with any LHI configuration.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No measurable effect.
No statistically significant change in strain was observed with any LHI configuration.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Adding Locking Head Inserts (LHI) to a 3.5-mm LCP had no effect on plate strain, stiffness, or deformation in an open fracture gap model.
  • Peak strain consistently occurred at the Combi-hole over the fracture gap, with values up to ~1837 µε.
  • No significant difference in strain was found across configurations with 0, 3, or 9 LHI (p = 0.847).
  • Construct stiffness and compressive displacement also remained unchanged regardless of LHI count (p = 0.311 and 0.069 respectively).
  • Study contradicted the hypothesis that LHI would reduce strain and increase stiffness under biologic loading.
  • Combi-hole design may limit the efficacy of LHI, as LHI only fill the locking portion, not the compression side where strain peaks.
  • Implant fatigue risk remains highest over unfilled screw holes, especially over fracture sites—confirming previous failure patterns.
  • Surgeons should consider alternative methods to reduce strain when facing high implant load scenarios.

Hawker

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

The Effect of Locking Head Inserts on the Biomechanical Properties of a 3.5-mm Broad Locking Compression Plate When Used in an Open Fracture-Gap Model

2025-4-VCOT-hawker-1

Article Title: The Effect of Locking Head Inserts on the Biomechanical Properties of a 3.5-mm Broad Locking Compression Plate When Used in an Open 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 Townsend 2024 et al., on 3D osteotomy accuracy, which osteotomy type showed the most significant time reduction using PSG versus freehand?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. PSG reduced execution time for SOO osteotomies (84s vs 162s, p < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Single oblique (SOO).
PSG reduced execution time for SOO osteotomies (84s vs 162s, p < .001).

🔍 Key Findings:

  • Design: Ex vivo study with 24 paired limbs from normal beagle dogs.
  • Osteotomy types (3 groups):
    1. 30° uniplanar frontal wedge
    2. Oblique (30° frontal, 15° sagittal)
    3. Single oblique (30° frontal, 15° sagittal, 30° external rotation)
  • Comparison: 3D PSG vs Freehand (FH)
  • Main Outcomes:
    • PSG accuracy: Mean angular deviation = 2.8° vs 6.4° in FH (p < .001).
    • 84% of PSG osteotomies were within 5° of target vs 50% of FH.
  • Significant improvements with PSG in:
    • Group 1 (uniplanar frontal) proximal and distal frontal planes (p < .001, .006)
    • Group 3 (SOO) frontal and sagittal planes (p = .002, .043)
  • Time: PSG faster in complex SOO group (84s vs 162s, p < .001); no difference in others.
  • No difference in osteotomy location (mm) between methods.
  • Clinical relevance: PSG more consistent and accurate, especially for complex cuts.

Townsend

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Comparison of three-dimensional printed patient-specific guides versus freehand approach for radial osteotomies in normal dogs: Ex vivo model

2024-2-VS-townsend-3

Article Title: Comparison of three-dimensional printed patient-specific guides versus freehand approach for radial osteotomies in normal dogs: Ex vivo 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 Buote 2023 et al., on 3D-printed cannulas in feline laparoscopy, what was the estimated cost of a single 3D printed autoclavable cannula?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Total estimated cost per autoclavable 3DPC was <$5 including materials and consumables.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Under $5.00.
Total estimated cost per autoclavable 3DPC was <$5 including materials and consumables.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed cannulas (3DPCs) reduced mean surgical time significantly in cadaveric procedures (125.6 vs 95.2 min, p = 0.03).
  • Cannula pullout events decreased from a mean of 10 to 2.2 per procedure when using only 3DPCs (p = 0.03).
  • Instrument collisions were significantly fewer with 3DPCs (6.8 vs 2.6 collisions, p = 0.03).
  • Live patients experienced no postoperative complications, including no incision site infections or discomfort.
  • Initial versions of 3DPCs had minor issues, including valve leakage and looser trocar fit, requiring surgical workarounds.
  • Customization of cannula shaft length (3 cm vs standard 5–8.3 cm) improved working space and reduced instrument interference.
  • Production cost was under $5 per cannula, suggesting 3DPCs may be a cost-effective and reusable alternative for small patients.
  • Study supports broader use of 3DPCs in laparoscopic procedures requiring long-jawed instruments or intricate tissue handling.

Buote

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

3D printed cannulas for use in laparoscopic surgery in feline patients: A cadaveric study and case series

2023-6-VS-buote-5

Article Title: 3D printed cannulas for use in laparoscopic surgery in feline patients: A cadaveric study and 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 Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was the **mean mediolateral bending stiffness** of SOP constructs **with** bending tees?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The mean mediolateral stiffness with tees was 43.17 N/mm compared to 41.09 N/mm without (p = 0.0042).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 43.2 N/mm.
The mean mediolateral stiffness with tees was 43.17 N/mm compared to 41.09 N/mm without (p = 0.0042).

🔍 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-2

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?

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.