Quiz Question

In Turner 2025 et al., on TPA changes after SH-1/2 fracture repair, which breed was most represented in the study cohort?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. French Bulldogs made up the largest portion of the sample (10/32), reflecting local demographics.
Incorrect. The correct answer is French Bulldog.
French Bulldogs made up the largest portion of the sample (10/32), reflecting local demographics.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • TPA decreased significantly from preoperative to follow-up (mean 5.89°; p < 0.001), and from immediate postoperative to follow-up (mean 2.2°; p = 0.018)
  • Use of tension band in addition to K-wires did not significantly improve TPA reduction compared to K-wires alone
  • Cranial K-wire positioning may attenuate growth at the cranial tibial physis, allowing relative caudal growth to reduce TPA over time
  • Dynamic TPA reduction may reduce risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture even when initial TPA is high
  • Small breeds (e.g., French Bulldogs) were overrepresented; further research is needed in larger breeds with more growth potential
  • Surgical reduction is difficult, but perfect alignment may not be essential if TPA reduces postoperatively
  • Radiographic TPA measurement was reliably performed with low interobserver variability
  • K-wire removal at 3–8 weeks may facilitate continued growth in growing dogs

Turner

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

5

2025

Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

2025-5-VCOT-turner-5

Article Title: Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics 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 Peycke 2022 et al., on CBLO in immature dogs, which structure must be **avoided during osteotomy** to preserve growth potential?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Avoiding the proximal tibial physis is key to preserving growth in skeletally immature dogs during CBLO.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Proximal tibial physis.
Avoiding the proximal tibial physis is key to preserving growth in skeletally immature dogs during CBLO.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • CBLO was effective for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature dogs with CrCL injuries, avoiding disruption of proximal tibial growth plates.
  • Radiographic union of the osteotomy occurred in a mean of 6 weeks (range: 4–8 weeks), indicating rapid bone healing.
  • Full limb function was restored in all cases by long-term follow-up (mean 23 months), including dogs with initial complications.
  • Two dogs developed 19° valgus deformities due to screw interference with the proximal tibial physis; both were corrected surgically with return to function.
  • One dog developed 10° recurvatum due to over-rotation of the tibial plateau, but retained full function without revision.
  • CCS (countersink compression screw) caused early apophyseal closure in older dogs but had no adverse clinical effects.
  • In contrast, K-wire or plate-only fixation preserved open apophysis, suggesting implant choice may influence growth.
  • No meniscal injuries were observed, and all CrCL injuries were managed arthroscopically — 6 complete, 6 partial, 4 avulsions.

Peycke

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Center of rotation of angulation-based leveling osteotomy for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature dogs

2022-3-VS-peycke-1

Article Title: Center of rotation of angulation-based leveling osteotomy for stifle stabilization in 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 Turner 2025 et al., on TPA changes after SH-1/2 fracture repair, what surgical feature may contribute to the dynamic reduction in TPA over time?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cranial K-wire placement may attenuate cranial physis growth, allowing caudal physis to reduce TPA over time.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cranial placement of K-wires.
Cranial K-wire placement may attenuate cranial physis growth, allowing caudal physis to reduce TPA over time.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • TPA decreased significantly from preoperative to follow-up (mean 5.89°; p < 0.001), and from immediate postoperative to follow-up (mean 2.2°; p = 0.018)
  • Use of tension band in addition to K-wires did not significantly improve TPA reduction compared to K-wires alone
  • Cranial K-wire positioning may attenuate growth at the cranial tibial physis, allowing relative caudal growth to reduce TPA over time
  • Dynamic TPA reduction may reduce risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture even when initial TPA is high
  • Small breeds (e.g., French Bulldogs) were overrepresented; further research is needed in larger breeds with more growth potential
  • Surgical reduction is difficult, but perfect alignment may not be essential if TPA reduces postoperatively
  • Radiographic TPA measurement was reliably performed with low interobserver variability
  • K-wire removal at 3–8 weeks may facilitate continued growth in growing dogs

Turner

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

5

2025

Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

2025-5-VCOT-turner-3

Article Title: Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics 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 de Moya 2023 et al., on FGPP of femoral capital physeal/neck fractures, what was the overall healing outcome?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Most fractures healed satisfactorily, though complications occurred in ~40% of cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 10/13 fractures healed successfully.
Most fractures healed satisfactorily, though complications occurred in ~40% of cases.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • 11 dogs, 13 fractures (mostly Salter-Harris type I) were repaired with FGPP using Kirschner wires.
  • 10/13 fractures achieved satisfactory healing with good limb function at ~43 days median follow-up.
  • Major complications occurred in 5 dogs: intra-articular pin placement, implant migration (2), implant failure with nonunion, and malunion.
  • 2 dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with radiographic remodeling were poor candidates → higher risk of nonunion/malunion.
  • Preoperative displacement was mostly mild (10/13 fractures); these had better outcomes than chronic or severely displaced cases.
  • Median surgical time: 60 minutes (range 45–75), all performed percutaneously without conversion to open.
  • Elective pin removal was performed in 5 cases; migration occurred with both short and long cut wires.
  • Femoral neck resorption (ā€œapple-coringā€) was rare (2/10 healed cases) and thought to be less frequent than after ORIF due to reduced vascular disruption.

de Moya

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

2023-7-VS-demoya-1

Article Title: Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 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 Bondonny 2024 et al., how did the growth plate appear on radiographs at 6–8 weeks in most cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The physis appeared closed at 6–8 weeks post-op in 72.3% of follow-up radiographs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Closed in 72.3% of cases.
The physis appeared closed at 6–8 weeks post-op in 72.3% of follow-up radiographs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • Retrospective study of 33 fractures in 31 cats with Salter–Harris I or II distal femoral fractures
  • Used 1 intramedullary Steinmann pin + 1 laterally placed antirotational pin
  • 96.9% achieved full functional outcome at mid-term follow-up
  • No implant migration or removal required
  • Minor complications: 2 seromas; Major: 3 (patellar luxation [2], osteomyelitis [1])
  • Growth plate remained open in 27.3% of cases at 6–8 weeks post-op

Bondonny

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Use of a Modified Intramedullary Pinning Technique for Distal Femoral Physeal Salter–Harris Type I and II Fracture Management

2024-2-VCOT-bondonny-5

Article Title: Use of a Modified Intramedullary Pinning Technique for Distal Femoral Physeal Salter–Harris Type I and II Fracture Management

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 Kokkinos 2025 et al., on THR age effects, what age group had the highest overall complication rate following total hip replacement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Younger dogs (<6 months) experienced significantly higher overall complication rates compared to older age groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Dogs <6 months.
Younger dogs (<6 months) experienced significantly higher overall complication rates compared to older age groups.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Study population: 116 dogs underwent cementless THR; grouped by age:
    • Group A: ≤6 months (n = 27)
    • Group B: >6 to ≤12 months (n = 41)
    • Group C: >12 months (n = 48)
  • Overall perioperative complication rate: 31.9% (37/116)
    • Group A: 22.2%
    • Group B: 26.8%
    • Group C: 41.7%
  • No significant difference in total complication rate by age (p = .207), though older dogs (Group C) had numerically higher rates.
  • Luxation was significantly more common in dogs >12 months:
    • Group C: 14.6% vs. Group A (0%) and Group B (2.4%) → p = .049
  • Most common complications: luxation (9.5%) and intraoperative fissure or fracture (9.5%)
  • Time under anesthesia and surgery duration were not associated with complication risk (p = .297 and p = .781)
  • No infections or aseptic loosening observed during the 8-week follow-up.

Kokkinos

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

The influence of age at total hip replacement on perioperative complications in dogs

2025-3-VS-kokkinos-1

Article Title: The influence of age at total hip replacement on perioperative complications 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 de Moya 2023 et al., on FGPP of femoral capital physeal/neck fractures, which factor was most associated with poor outcomes requiring salvage procedures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with remodeling had higher risk of implant failure and malunion.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Chronicity with radiographic remodeling.
Dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with remodeling had higher risk of implant failure and malunion.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • 11 dogs, 13 fractures (mostly Salter-Harris type I) were repaired with FGPP using Kirschner wires.
  • 10/13 fractures achieved satisfactory healing with good limb function at ~43 days median follow-up.
  • Major complications occurred in 5 dogs: intra-articular pin placement, implant migration (2), implant failure with nonunion, and malunion.
  • 2 dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with radiographic remodeling were poor candidates → higher risk of nonunion/malunion.
  • Preoperative displacement was mostly mild (10/13 fractures); these had better outcomes than chronic or severely displaced cases.
  • Median surgical time: 60 minutes (range 45–75), all performed percutaneously without conversion to open.
  • Elective pin removal was performed in 5 cases; migration occurred with both short and long cut wires.
  • Femoral neck resorption (ā€œapple-coringā€) was rare (2/10 healed cases) and thought to be less frequent than after ORIF due to reduced vascular disruption.

de Moya

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

2023-7-VS-demoya-2

Article Title: Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 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 Gomes 2025 et al., on subdural shunting for TL-AD, which breed was overrepresented among cases that recurred?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 5 of 7 recurrence cases were Pugs, consistent with prior literature showing breed predisposition.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Pug.
5 of 7 recurrence cases were Pugs, consistent with prior literature showing breed predisposition.

šŸ” 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 (ā‰ˆ42% 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-5

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?

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 Carrera 2024 et al., what was the average time to radiographic bone healing following early MPL surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mean time to healing was 55 ± 24 days, consistent across osteotomy techniques:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 55 days.
Mean time to healing was 55 ± 24 days, consistent across osteotomy techniques:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • 5 juvenile dogs (mean age 7.2 months) with grade III–IV MPL were treated surgically.
  • Most had femoral varus + external tibial torsion; some had shallow trochlear grooves.
  • Distal femoral osteotomy was performed in 4/5 dogs; Tibial tuberosity transposition (TTT) in 3/5; Sulcoplasty in 2/5.
  • Mean time to weight bearing: 9.8 ± 5.5 days; healing: 55 ± 24 days
  • No reluxations, and final radiographic values for aLDFA and torsion were maintained at 1 year.
  • One complication due to domestic trauma, not surgical failure.
  • Early surgery appeared to preserve alignment and prevent deformity progression.

Carrera

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Early Surgical Management of Medial Patellar Luxation in Juvenile Dogs

2024-2-VCOT-carrera-3

Article Title: Early Surgical Management of Medial Patellar Luxation in Juvenile Dogs

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 Forzisi 2025 et al., on femoral growth post-THR, what was the relationship between age at surgery and femoral length difference?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No statistical association was found between age and femoral length change (p = .462–.745).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Age at surgery had no significant effect.
No statistical association was found between age and femoral length change (p = .462–.745).

šŸ” Key Findings

Population: 24 dogs (<8.5 months) undergoing unilateral cementless THR.
Growth Impact:

  • Operated femurs showed ~11.5% less trochanteric growth than controls (p = .002).
  • No significant difference in femoral diaphyseal + epiphyseal length (p = .712) or femur overall (p = .465).

Cortical Width:

  • Increased significantly at 10 mm distal to trochanter (4.6% increase, p = .037) and at 50% femoral length (8.5% increase, p = .030).

Clinical relevance: Despite measurable changes, no clinically significant impairment to femoral length occurred.
Effect Sizes:

  • Moderate negative for trochanteric growth.
  • Moderate positive for proximal femoral width.

Forzisi

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Evaluation of the effects of cementless total hip replacement on femoral length in skeletally immature dogs

2025-1-VS-forzisi-5

Article Title: Evaluation of the effects of cementless total hip replacement on femoral length in 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Pediatrics & Growth Plate Considerations
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.