Quiz Question

In Ferreira 2025 et al., on tibial torsion measurement, which population was primarily studied?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study focused on dogs with MPL, mostly from small breeds.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Small-breed dogs with MPL.
The study focused on dogs with MPL, mostly from small breeds.

🔍 Key Findings

Objective: Validate a new 3D CT-based method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with MPL, comparing it to a traditional method.

Sample: 40 tibiae from client-owned dogs with MPL (primarily small-breed).

Repeatability (intraobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.99 → excellent agreement

Reproducibility (interobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.83 → high agreement
  • Traditional method: ICC = 0.52 → moderate agreement

Torsion angle measurements:

  • New method avg: 16.00° ± 8.77
  • Traditional method avg: 8.76° ± 4.92

Conclusion: The new method is more repeatable, reproducible, and provides higher torsion values than the traditional Aper method, especially reliable for small-breed dogs.

Ferreira

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

2025-3-VS-ferreira-5

Article Title: Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

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 De Moya 2025 et al., on antebrachial deformity correction, what was the mean total radial lengthening achieved after distraction osteogenesis?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mean lengthening was 22.6 mm, representing ~11% increase compared to the contralateral radius.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 22.6 mm.
Mean lengthening was 22.6 mm, representing ~11% increase compared to the contralateral radius.

🔍 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-4

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 Welsh 2023 et al., on TTAF fixation methods, what was the estimated quadriceps force at a walk used as a benchmark for load testing?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 240 N was cited as the estimated quadriceps force during walking, used to benchmark construct strength.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 240 N.
240 N was cited as the estimated quadriceps force during walking, used to benchmark construct strength.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two-pin fixation had significantly greater strength (639 N) than single-pin fixation (426 N) in TTAF models (p = .003).
  • Stiffness was also higher with two-pin constructs (72 N/mm vs 57 N/mm); statistically significant (p = .029).
  • Both fixation types withstood loads greater than quadriceps force in dogs at a walk (240 N), indicating clinical viability.
  • Failure was most commonly due to pin bending or pullout (82%), with fewer cases of ligament tearing or epiphyseal fracture.
  • K-wire insertion angle (KWIA) did not significantly differ between fixation types (p = .13).
  • Single larger pins delivered ~68% of the strength and ~83% of the stiffness of two smaller vertically aligned pins.
  • Clinical implication: Two vertically aligned pins are biomechanically superior for TTAF fixation in canine models.
  • Study used mature cadavers, which may underestimate loads and stiffness compared to immature clinical cases.

Welsh

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion fracture model

2023-5-VS-welsh-5

Article Title: Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion 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 Miller 2024 et al., what was the most common breed represented in the surgical cohort?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. French Bulldogs accounted for 54 of 124 dogs, making them the most common breed in the study.
Incorrect. The correct answer is French Bulldog.
French Bulldogs accounted for 54 of 124 dogs, making them the most common breed in the study.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Sample: 124 dogs (64 S, 60 FFP); French Bulldogs most common (54/124)
  • Pre-op clinical signs: Exercise intolerance (34/124), stertor (22), regurgitation (7), vomiting (12)
  • Operative time (no concurrent procedure): Longer in FFP (75 vs 51 min, p = .02)
  • Anesthetic time: Longer in FFP (111 vs 80 min, p = .02)
  • Anesthetic complications: Similar rates (FFP 50, S 49; p = .30)
  • Post-op regurgitation: 27/124 (S: 17, FFP: 10; p = .18)
  • Post-op aspiration pneumonia: Rare (S: 4, FFP: 5)
  • Major complications: Rare (5/124); 2 dogs euthanized post-op (1 per group)
  • Revision surgery: Needed in 7/124 (3 S, 4 FFP)

Miller

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Complications and outcome following staphylectomy and folded flap palatoplasty in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

2024-1-VS-miller-1

Article Title: Complications and outcome following staphylectomy and folded flap palatoplasty in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

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 Bondonny 2024 et al., what factor contributed to a case of medial patellar luxation at follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Medial patellar luxation was linked to angular deformity and early closure of growth plate:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Premature asymmetric growth plate closure.
Medial patellar luxation was linked to angular deformity and early closure of growth plate:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

🔍 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-3

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?

🔥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 Banks 2024 et al., what patient factor was associated with higher preoperative and postoperative TPAs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Small dogs had significantly higher pre- and postoperative TPAs than large dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Small body size.
Small dogs had significantly higher pre- and postoperative TPAs than large dogs.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Study Design: Retrospective study of 100 radiographs using in silico and clinical data
  • Mean preoperative TPA: 28.6°, higher in small dogs than large (p = .02)
  • Mean planned TPA (in silico): 7.6°, not achieving 5° target (p < .01)
  • Median postoperative TPA: 5.5° overall; higher in small dogs (7°) vs large (4.5°) (p = .06)
  • Postoperative ostectomy position: More distal than recommended; average = 8.6 mm
  • Increased distalizationgreater under-correction of TPA (p = .01)
  • Most accurate correction occurred when ostectomy was ≤7.5 mm from patellar tendon
  • Wedge angle categories (TPA-Pre minus 5–2°) were used based on pre-op TPA

Banks

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

A mismatch of planning and achieved tibial plateau angle in cranial closing wedge surgery: An in silico and clinical evaluation of 100 cases

2024-1-VS-banks-4

Article Title: A mismatch of planning and achieved tibial plateau angle in cranial closing wedge surgery: An in silico and clinical evaluation of 100 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 Forzisi 2025 et al., on femoral growth post-THR, what hypothesis regarding trochanteric growth was supported?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The 11.5% decrease in trochanteric growth supports the hypothesis that THR reduces growth in this region.
Incorrect. The correct answer is THR reduces trochanteric growth.
The 11.5% decrease in trochanteric growth supports the hypothesis that THR reduces growth in this region.

🔍 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-4

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?

🔥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 Forzisi 2025 et al., on femoral growth post-THR, how did femoral cortical width change at 50% femoral length?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. THR increased femoral cortical width by 8.5% at 50% length (p = .030).
Incorrect. The correct answer is It increased by 8.5%.
THR increased femoral cortical width by 8.5% at 50% length (p = .030).

🔍 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-3

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?

🔥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 Anderson 2023 et al., on French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fractures, which factor was **not significantly associated** with the presence of a contralateral HIF?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. HIF presence was not significantly more common in younger dogs (p = .129).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Younger age.
HIF presence was not significantly more common in younger dogs (p = .129).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Lateral humeral condylar fractures (LHCF) were most common, comprising 63.6% of cases.
  • Transcondylar screw (TCS) + K-wire(s) fixation had a 7.62x higher risk of major complications compared to other methods (p = .009).
  • All cases of TCS migration occurred in the TCS + K-wire group; none occurred with plate fixation.
  • Overall complication rate was 40.9%, with 29.5% being major and requiring intervention.
  • Contralateral humeral intracondylar fissures (HIF) were found in 58.1% of French Bulldogs with CT data.
  • No significant association between age and presence of HIF, but fissure length increased with age (R = 0.47, p = .048).
  • Younger, lighter dogs had higher complication and screw migration rates, possibly due to softer bone and smaller condyles.
  • TCS + plate fixation had the lowest complication rate, suggesting biomechanical superiority.

Anderson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

2023-1-VS-anderson-5

Article Title: Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

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 Jones 2024 et al., on LEAP plate use, which dog breed made up the majority of the study population?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Spaniel breeds, particularly English Springer Spaniels, were the most common in this study population.
Incorrect. The correct answer is English Springer Spaniel.
Spaniel breeds, particularly English Springer Spaniels, were the most common in this study population.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 62 fractures in 61 dogs (44 lateral condylar, 18 intracondylar); mostly Spaniels
  • LEAP plate used in all cases; minimal intraoperative contouring needed (1 French Bulldog)
  • Overall complication rate: ~33%, mostly minor; 1 amputation due to catastrophic infection
  • Radiographic healing:
    • Lateral epicondylar part healed in 100%
    • Condylar part healed in ~61.5% LCF and ~57.1% ICF
  • Functional outcomes:
    • 87% returned to full limb use
    • Median LOAD score: 2 for LCF, 6.5 for ICF
  • Design adjustments made post-study to strengthen weak zones around 3rd–4th screw holes

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures in Dogs

2024-4-VS-jones-5

Article Title: Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Pediatrics & Growth Plate Considerations
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.