Quiz Question

In Sisk 2024 et al., which IMN design improvement addresses rotational slack?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Angle-stable designs reduce mediolateral “slack” and enhance torsional stability:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Angle-stable interlocking threads.
Angle-stable designs reduce mediolateral “slack” and enhance torsional stability:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 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-4

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 Trefny 2025 et al., on plate length and stiffness, what plate–bone ratio was required before significant stiffness and strain differences became apparent?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Biomechanical differences only became significant at the 80% plate–bone ratio (12-hole plate).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 80%.
Biomechanical differences only became significant at the 80% plate–bone ratio (12-hole plate).

🔍 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-5

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 Wood 2024 et al., on knot security and locking throws, which suture material showed greater holding strength?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Monosyn consistently outperformed PDS in all tested friction knot configurations.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Monosyn.
Monosyn consistently outperformed PDS in all tested friction knot configurations.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Adding a single locking throw significantly increased holding security for specific knots, including the surgeon's throw (p = .0001) and square throw (p = .0002).
  • For the Miller's throw (p = .166) and strangle throw (p = .808), no significant improvement was observed with a locking throw.
  • After locking throw addition, all five knots leaked at similar pressures (p = .5233), and these pressures exceeded physiologic arterial pressures.
  • Surgeon's throw without a locking throw had the lowest leak pressure (62.5 ± 46.2 mm Hg), below physiologic arterial values.
  • The square throw without locking also leaked below physiologic pressures (148.7 ± 109.4 mm Hg), though it outperformed the surgeon's throw.
  • Miller’s and strangle throws performed significantly better than square or surgeon’s throws without locking, achieving leak pressures >200 mm Hg.
  • All knots used 2-0 polyglyconate monofilament (Maxon); no comparisons across suture types or sizes were performed.
  • Authors concluded that correct tensioning and locking throw addition are key to safe vascular ligation. Miller’s, strangle, or slip knots are preferred for challenging surgical fields.

Wood

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Influence of a single locking throw on the in vitro holding security of five friction knots using two monofilament suture materials in a canine model

2024-4-VS-wood-4

Article Title: Influence of a single locking throw on the in vitro holding security of five friction knots using two monofilament suture materials in a canine 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 Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was the effect of bending tees on **craniocaudal bending stiffness**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Craniocaudal stiffness was statistically unchanged with or without bending tees (p = 0.89).
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant change.
Craniocaudal stiffness was statistically unchanged with or without bending tees (p = 0.89).

🔍 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-1

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 Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, what intramedullary pin diameter was associated with the highest biomechanical performance?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1.6 mm (50% fill).
Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 2.4 mm LCP with a 1.6 mm IM pin had the highest axial stiffness and yield strength among the tested constructs.
  • Axial stiffness was significantly higher in the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm IM pin group compared to 2.7 mm LCP alone (p = .013).
  • No significant difference in torsional stiffness was found among groups.
  • 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin had the lowest stiffness and failure load, underperforming both other constructs.
  • All constructs failed via valgus bending, consistent with clinical observations in feline tibial fractures.
  • A 1.6 mm pin (~50% canal fill) resulted in superior construct performance vs. 1.0 mm (~30% fill).
  • Group 2 (2.4 LCP + 1.6 mm pin) outperformed the 2.7 mm LCP alone in stiffness, despite using a smaller plate.
  • Plate–rod constructs may better preserve periosteal blood supply and support minimally invasive stabilization strategies.

Gutbrod

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia

2024-4-VS-gutbrod-3

Article Title: Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia

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 Townsend 2024 et al., on 3D osteotomy accuracy, which metric did NOT differ significantly between PSG and freehand methods?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Osteotomy location (mm) did not differ significantly between PSG and FH methods.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Location deviation (mm).
Osteotomy location (mm) did not differ significantly between PSG and FH methods.

🔍 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-5

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 Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, when did transcortical contact occur in long working length constructs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Transcortical contact occurred in long constructs around 150–155 N in tension bending.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Between 150–155 N.
Transcortical contact occurred in long constructs around 150–155 N in tension 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-2

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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, approximately how many times body weight did prosthetic femurs withstand before failure?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Despite reduced load tolerance vs. controls, prosthetic femurs still exceeded ~6× body weight capacity.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 6.2×.
Despite reduced load tolerance vs. controls, prosthetic femurs still exceeded ~6× body weight capacity.

🔍 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-4

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 Sisk 2024 et al., which nail design feature may reduce infection risk?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Solid IMNs showed two-fold reduced infection rates vs. slotted or cannulated nails in rabbit studies:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Solid nail design.
Solid IMNs showed two-fold reduced infection rates vs. slotted or cannulated nails in rabbit studies:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 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-2

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 effect did LHI have on axial stiffness and displacement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No statistical differences in axial stiffness or deformation were noted between groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant effect.
No statistical differences in axial stiffness or deformation were noted between groups.

🔍 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-3

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?

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.