Quiz Question

In Lederer 2025 et al., on MIPO vs ORPS, what factor was significantly associated with explantation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Fracture comminution was significantly associated with implant explantation (p < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Comminution of fracture.
Fracture comminution was significantly associated with implant explantation (p < .001).

šŸ” Key Findings

Study size: 105 dogs (73 ORPS; 32 MIPO)

MIPO vs ORPS differences:

  • Surgical time: MIPO median 130 min vs ORPS 85 min (p < .001)
  • Explant rate: MIPO 25% vs ORPS 4.1% (p = .003)
  • Time to clinical union: MIPO 85 days vs ORPS 57 days (p = .010)
  • Frontal alignment deviation: MIPO 3.5° vs ORPS 2.0° (p = .047)
  • Comminution more frequent in MIPO (41% vs 16%; p = .012)

Significant predictors for MIPO use: More proximal fracture margin (p = .004), surgeon identity (p < .001)

No significant difference: Sagittal alignment, radial length, union rate, or complication rate by surgeon

Implant preference: Fixin plates used in 84% of MIPO; locking plates more common in ORPS

Lederer

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

2025-4-VS-lederer-4

Article Title: Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
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.

šŸ” 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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, which of the following was significantly different in the FRS group compared to the virtual plan?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FRS resulted in increased recurvatum (median 2.9°; P = .03), but all remained within acceptable range.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Sagittal plane alignment.
FRS resulted in increased recurvatum (median 2.9°; P = .03), but all remained within acceptable range.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates using 3D-printed femoral models achieved near-anatomic alignment in all cadaver limbs.
  • Fracture reduction system (FRS) required significantly fewer fluoroscopy images than intramedullary pin (IMP) methods (7 vs 26, P = .001).
  • Despite longer surgical time (43 vs 29 minutes, P = .011), FRS showed equally accurate or better alignment compared to IMP.
  • Femoral length, frontal, sagittal, and axial alignment were all within near-anatomic thresholds (<10 mm or <5° deviation) in both groups.
  • FRS was associated with more consistent length maintenance, with IMP showing a median shortening of 2.3 mm (P = .03).
  • Axial plane deviation was statistically different in the FRS group (P = .04), but still clinically acceptable.
  • Study highlights potential for custom 3D-printed guides to reduce radiation exposure and improve precision in MIPO procedures.
  • Authors caution that FRS was time-consuming and cumbersome, suggesting design refinements needed for clinical use.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D‐printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs

2023-6-VS-scheuermann-4-42a40

Article Title: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D‐printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Sadowitz 2023 et al., on screw angle & speed, which technique produced a lower TCF rate despite off-axis screw insertion?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Hand insertion of off-axis screws resulted in only 3.75% TCF rate, suggesting lower speed allows redirection and reduces fracture.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Manual insertion at 10° angle.
Hand insertion of off-axis screws resulted in only 3.75% TCF rate, suggesting lower speed allows redirection and reduces fracture.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • TCF risk increased significantly with 10° insertion angle at both 650 rpm (12.5%) and 1350 rpm (17.5%), compared to 0% in the control group (0° at 650 rpm).
  • Hand insertion at 10° angle resulted in only 3.75% TCF rate, suggesting lower insertion speed reduces risk.
  • No TCFs occurred when screws were inserted coaxially (0°) at either 650 or 1350 rpm, indicating angle is a critical factor.
  • Screw speed alone did not increase TCF risk unless combined with off-axis insertion.
  • Radiographically detectable TCFs were only considered; actual rates may be higher with direct bone inspection.
  • Cutting flutes engaging undrilled bone during off-axis insertion likely contribute to TCF formation.
  • Clinical implication: Ensure screws are inserted coaxially and at lower speeds to reduce TCF risk during procedures like TPLO.
  • Statistically significant differences were found between control and high-angle insertion groups: Group C (p = .001), Group E (p < .001).

Sadowitz

Veterinary Surgery

8

2023

Effect of screw insertion angle and speed on the incidence of transcortical fracture development in a canine tibial diaphyseal model

2023-8-VS-sadowitz-4

Article Title: Effect of screw insertion angle and speed on the incidence of transcortical fracture development in a canine tibial diaphyseal model

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Chitty 2025 et al., on tibial fracture fixation in immature dogs, what was the odds ratio for complication reduction with internal fixation versus external fixation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Internal fixation significantly reduced odds of complications (OR 0.23, p = .004).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.23.
Internal fixation significantly reduced odds of complications (OR 0.23, p = .004).

šŸ” Key Findings

Internal fixation (IF) group (n=59):

  • Complication rate: 20.3%
  • Major complications: 15.3%
  • Longer time to discharge if complications occurred (median: 12.5 weeks)

External skeletal fixation (ESF) group (n=36):

  • Complication rate: 55.6% (p < .001 vs IF)
  • Major complications: 52.8%
  • Most common issue: pin tract morbidity

Multivariable analysis:

  • Use of IF significantly reduced odds of complications (OR 0.23, p = .004)
  • Use of post-op antibiotics associated with increased odds of complications (OR 3.53, p = .028)

Fixation choice influenced by age:

  • Older puppies more likely to receive IF (OR 1.25 per week increase in age, p < .001)

Breed & fracture distribution:

  • Common breeds: Labrador, Border Collie, Whippet
  • Common fracture sites: middle and proximal third of tibia

Chitty

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Short‐term complications of internal versus external fixation of closed diaphyseal tibial fractures in 95 skeletally immature dogs

2025-4-VS-chitty-3

Article Title: Short‐term complications of internal versus external fixation of closed diaphyseal tibial fractures in 95 skeletally immature dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Anderson 2024 et al., how was the caudal malpositioning of the TPLO plate hypothesized to contribute to nerve injury?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Drilling caudally positioned plates risks striking the fibular nerve directly:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Directed drill trajectory toward fibular nerve.
Drilling caudally positioned plates risks striking the fibular nerve directly:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • 3 dogs developed permanent fibular nerve dysfunction following TPLO
  • Common findings:
    • Drill hole or screw in caudal tibial cortex just distal to osteotomy
    • Caudal malpositioning of TPLO plate (esp. right limb of case 3)
    • Post-op signs: cranial tibial atrophy, knuckling, exaggerated gait, no hock flexion
  • One case had confirmed deep/superficial fibular neuropathy via electrodiagnostics
  • Recommended prevention: avoid overly caudal drill paths; careful gait assessment at follow-up is key

Anderson

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Permanent Iatrogenic Fibular Nerve Injury following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy

2024-3-VCOT-anderson-4

Article Title: Permanent Iatrogenic Fibular Nerve Injury following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Redolfi 2024 et al., what was the most common major complication observed after TPLO-TTT?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Surgical site infections occurred in 3/24 stifles; the most frequent major complication
Incorrect. The correct answer is Surgical site infection.
Surgical site infections occurred in 3/24 stifles; the most frequent major complication

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • Study of 24 stifles in 22 dogs with concurrent CCLR and grade III–IV MPL treated via TPLO-TTT
  • Major complications: 4/24 (3 surgical site infections, 1 MPL reluxation); minor complications: 5/24
  • Long-term follow-up (median 27 months): 21/22 dogs sound, 23/24 stifles resolved
  • Patellar ligament thickening observed post-op in 4 cases, resolved with rehab
  • The only case of MPL reluxation involved untreated tibial torsion, suggesting case selection is critical

Redolfi

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Complications and Long-Term Outcomes after Combined Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy and Tibial Tuberosity Transposition for Treatment of Concurrent Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture and Grade III or IV Medial Patellar Luxation

2024-1-VCOT-redolfi-2

Article Title: Complications and Long-Term Outcomes after Combined Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy and Tibial Tuberosity Transposition for Treatment of Concurrent Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture and Grade III or IV Medial Patellar Luxation

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Mazdarani 2022 et al., on CBLO and stifle biomechanics, the release of the medial meniscus (MMR) led to which of the following?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. MMR led to earlier and more severe CTT than CCLx alone, highlighting the meniscus as a secondary stabilizer.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased cranial tibial translation (CTT) earlier than CCLx.
MMR led to earlier and more severe CTT than CCLx alone, highlighting the meniscus as a secondary stabilizer.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • CBLO reduced tibial plateau angle (TPA) from a mean of 28.1° to 9.7°, aligning with its goal of flattening the tibial slope.
  • CBLO eliminated cranial tibial translation (CTT) following CCL transection and meniscal release at all angles except 140° without hamstring load.
  • Hamstring loading (20% quadriceps load) significantly reduced or delayed the onset of CTT, improving stifle stability.
  • Medial meniscus was confirmed as a secondary stabilizer; its release (MMR) caused more CTT than CCLx alone.
  • PTA (patellar tendon angle) increased with joint extension; CBLO shifted the PTA curve lower and parallel to intact values, suggesting effective flexion of the joint.
  • Combined CBLO and hamstring loading resulted in the most stable joints, especially from 50° to 135° joint angles.
  • Residual CTT occurred in CBLO-only limbs at higher extension angles (e.g., 140°), but hamstring load mitigated this.
  • Stifle stability post-CBLO is multifactorial, depending on joint angle, meniscal integrity, and hamstring activation.

Mazdarani

Veterinary Surgery

6

2022

Effect of center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy on ex vivo stifle joint stability following cranial cruciate ligament transection and medial meniscal release with and without a hamstring load

2022-6-VS-mazdarani-4

Article Title: Effect of center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy on ex vivo stifle joint stability following cranial cruciate ligament transection and medial meniscal release with and without a hamstring load

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, which complication occurred with the use of the tendon clamp?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The one case using a tendon clamp developed seroma and later abscess, resolving after treatment.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Seroma and abscess.
The one case using a tendon clamp developed seroma and later abscess, resolving after treatment.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Case series of 6 shoulders in 5 working/sporting dogs. Conditions treated: 3 partial biceps ruptures, 3 luxations with fraying.
  • All treated with biceps tenodesis using a bioabsorbable anchor (Weldix 2.3 mm).
  • All dogs returned to function (some to high-level sports); lameness resolved within 1–5 weeks.
  • No implant-related complications with anchor-only cases. One dog had seroma and later infection but recovered.
  • Tendon clamp (used in 2 cases) caused irritation in one dog → resolved after removal.
  • CT follow-up confirmed integrity; drill holes filled with bone.
  • Median LOAD score: 12; higher in older dogs or with concurrent conditions.
  • Authors suggest tenodesis offers more stability and faster return to function than tenotomy in working dogs.
  • Larger, controlled studies are recommended.

Schuenemann

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Biceps tenodesis with a bioabsorbable bone anchor using BoneWelding technology: Results in six clinical cases (5 dogs)

2025-4-VS-schuenemann-3

Article Title: Biceps tenodesis with a bioabsorbable bone anchor using BoneWelding technology: Results in six clinical cases (5 dogs)

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Bae 2025 et al., on SI screw orientation, what was the observed failure mode in all specimens?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All constructs failed via rotation only, with no screw breakage or fractures reported.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Rotational failure.
All constructs failed via rotation only, with no screw breakage or fractures reported.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Ex vivo study using 24 canine cadaver pelves to test screw thread direction in SI luxation.
  • Four groups: RhRSI, RhLSI, LhRSI, LhLSI.
  • Right-handed screws on right side (RhRSI) had 313% higher torque and 274% higher load vs left side (p < .01).
  • Left-handed screws on left side (LhLSI) had 198% higher torque and 195% higher load vs right side (p < .03).
  • All failures occurred due to rotation, with no screw breakage or fractures.
  • Body weight and moment arm were similar across groups.
  • Clinical implication: Use of screw matching handedness to luxation side improves stability.

Bae

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Effect of thread direction on rotational stability in lag​-screw fixation of sacroiliac luxation: An ex vivo cadaveric study in small-breed dogs

2025-2-VS-bae-2

Article Title: Effect of thread direction on rotational stability in lag​-screw fixation of sacroiliac luxation: An ex vivo cadaveric study in small-breed dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

Quiz Results

Topic: Orthopedic Complications
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

āŒ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

āœ… 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.