Quiz Question

In Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, what was the mechanical advantage of using two short screws versus one long screw?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Two short screws (SLS and SPS) produced >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness compared to a single long screw.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Peak load and stiffness were more than doubled with two short screws.
Two short screws (SLS and SPS) produced >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness compared to a single long screw.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two short screws (SLS or SPS) provided >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness vs a single long screw (LLS) for SI joint stabilization.
  • No mechanical advantage was seen between the two short screw types (lag vs positional).
  • All short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding spinal impingement.
  • Ventral sacral foraminal impingement occurred in 3 short-screw cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS), all involving the caudal screw.
  • LLS group showed more abaxial displacement at osteotomy sites, suggesting inferior stabilization for concurrent pelvic fractures.
  • Short screw constructs had longer total screw length (48 mm) than LLS (40 mm), contributing to increased stiffness.
  • Positioning of caudal screw in a cranial/craniodorsal trajectory may help avoid nerve foraminal injury.
  • No significant difference in displacement at peak load among groups; stiffness and load capacity were the primary benefits.

Hanlon

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

2022-7-VS-hanlon-1

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

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 Woelfel 2022 et al., on cervical locked facets, what was the most common inciting cause?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 9 out of 10 cases were due to external trauma from dog attacks.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Attacks by larger dogs.
9 out of 10 cases were due to external trauma from dog attacks.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Locked facet injuries in dogs involved unilateral dorsal displacement of the cranial articular process of the caudal vertebra, most commonly at C5/6 or C6/7.
  • All affected dogs were small/toy breeds, typically following trauma (most often attacks by larger dogs).
  • Neurologic severity ranged from ambulatory tetraparesis to tetraplegia, often with thoracic limb deficits more severe than pelvic limbs — suggesting a central cord syndrome-like pattern.
  • CT and MRI revealed axial rotation, subluxation, and articular process displacement; MRI showed T2 hyperintensity, nerve root impingement, and soft tissue changes.
  • Surgical treatment included ventral fixation with screws, pins, and PMMA, and one case required dorsal facetectomy for reduction.
  • Medical management, including external coaptation or rest, also resulted in functional recovery in select cases.
  • All dogs with follow-up data (8/8) had functional recovery, with nonambulatory dogs regaining ambulation in a median of 4 weeks.
  • No consistent differences in outcome were observed between surgical and nonsurgical management, suggesting locked facets may be biomechanically stable.

Woelfel

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries in dogs

2022-1-VS-woelfel-3

Article Title: Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries 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?

In Scott 2023 et al., on thoracoscopic-assisted lung lobectomy, what proportion of dogs **required conversion to open thoracotomy** during surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Six of thirty dogs (20%) were converted to open thoracotomy due to adhesions, oxygen desaturation, or difficulty isolating the lung lobe.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 20%.
Six of thirty dogs (20%) were converted to open thoracotomy due to adhesions, oxygen desaturation, or difficulty isolating the lung lobe.

🔍 Key Findings

  • TA lung lobectomy was feasible in dogs ≥3 kg, including those with lesions up to 10 cm.
  • 12 intraoperative complications (40%) occurred, with 6 dogs (20%) converted to open thoracotomy, mainly due to adhesions or inability to isolate lobes.
  • Postoperative complications occurred in 8 dogs (27%), most were mild (63%), and only 1 death (3%) was reported.
  • Median hospitalization was 47 hours; 29/30 dogs were discharged successfully.
  • One-lung ventilation (OLV) was attempted in 7 dogs but successfully maintained in only 4.
  • Linear staplers had shorter surgery times (median 57.5 min) than endoscopic staplers (80 min).
  • Histopathology confirmed neoplasia in 77% of cases, most commonly papillary and bronchioalveolar carcinoma.
  • TA lobectomy allows MIS in smaller dogs or with large lesions, avoiding need for full thoracotomy or complex anesthesia/stapling.

Scott

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Complications and outcomes of thoracoscopic-assisted lung lobectomy in dogs

2023-1-VS-scott-2

Article Title: Complications and outcomes of thoracoscopic-assisted lung lobectomy 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?

In Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was the odds ratio (OR) for successful placement using freehand compared to 3DPG?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Freehand technique was significantly less likely to result in acceptable placement (OR = 0.28, p < .0001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.28 (p < .0001).
Freehand technique was significantly less likely to result in acceptable placement (OR = 0.28, p < .0001).

🔍 Key Findings:

  • Sample: 24 canine cadavers, 477 total pins across 240 vertebrae.
  • Technique Comparison: 3D printed guides (3DPG) vs freehand (FH).
  • Acceptable Placement Rates: 3DPG = 87.5%, FH = 69.8% (p < .0001).
  • Odds Ratio for FH: 0.28 (95% CI 0.16–0.47), significantly less likely to yield acceptable placement.
  • Worst Accuracy Locations: T10 (OR 0.10), T11 (OR 0.35).
  • Surgeon Impact: Surgeon 2 outperformed others (OR 9.61, p = .001).
  • Modified Zdichavsky Classification used to score implant accuracy (Grades I–IIIb).
  • Primary Benefit of 3DPG: Increased safety and precision, regardless of surgeon experience.

Guevara

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

2024-2-VS-guevara-2

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the functional outcome in dogs that completed follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 6 dogs available for follow-up showed good to excellent clinical outcomes over 621 days.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Good to excellent.
All 6 dogs available for follow-up showed good to excellent clinical outcomes over 621 days.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Scott

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs

2025-3-VS-scott-5

Article Title: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine 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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, implantation of the prosthesis reduced maximum load by approximately what percentage compared to controls?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Maximum load was 22% lower in prosthetic femurs versus intact controls.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 22%.
Maximum load was 22% lower in prosthetic femurs versus intact controls.

🔍 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-1

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 Dalton 2023 et al., In Minimally invasive acetabular fracture repair in dogs, what reduction quality was reported in cadaveric cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cadavers achieved near-anatomic reductions with minimal gap and step defect.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Fracture gap <2 mm and step defect <1 mm.
Cadavers achieved near-anatomic reductions with minimal gap and step defect.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Feasibility study in 5 canine cadavers plus 1 clinical case (Chihuahua, 5.5 kg).
  • Technique used two small approaches (caudal and craniolateral) connected with an epiperiosteal tunnel.
  • Plates were precontoured on mirrored 3D-printed hemipelves to improve fit and reduce intraoperative bending.
  • Cadaver outcomes: fracture gap <2 mm, step defect <1 mm, pelvic angulation <5°.
  • Sciatic nerve injury was minimal: 1/5 cadavers had a mild indentation; others had no gross injury.
  • Median total surgical time: ~46 minutes in cadavers; incisions ~5 cm.
  • Clinical Chihuahua case: weight-bearing within 24 hrs, radiographic union at 3 months; one screw fractured but no adverse effect.
  • Authors conclude: MIAF with 3D printing is feasible and accurate, but requires further evaluation before routine use.

Dalton

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

2023-7-VS-dalton-4

Article Title: Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, what was the difference in mechanical performance between short lag and short positional screws?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No statistical difference in mechanical performance (stiffness, peak, or yield load) was found between SLS and SPS.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No mechanical difference was observed.
No statistical difference in mechanical performance (stiffness, peak, or yield load) was found between SLS and SPS.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two short screws (SLS or SPS) provided >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness vs a single long screw (LLS) for SI joint stabilization.
  • No mechanical advantage was seen between the two short screw types (lag vs positional).
  • All short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding spinal impingement.
  • Ventral sacral foraminal impingement occurred in 3 short-screw cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS), all involving the caudal screw.
  • LLS group showed more abaxial displacement at osteotomy sites, suggesting inferior stabilization for concurrent pelvic fractures.
  • Short screw constructs had longer total screw length (48 mm) than LLS (40 mm), contributing to increased stiffness.
  • Positioning of caudal screw in a cranial/craniodorsal trajectory may help avoid nerve foraminal injury.
  • No significant difference in displacement at peak load among groups; stiffness and load capacity were the primary benefits.

Hanlon

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

2022-7-VS-hanlon-2

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

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 Kimura 2025 et al., on mini-THA in <4 kg dogs, what complication led to the discontinuation of a THA procedure in one case?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In one case, cup impaction led to a rim fracture preventing stem placement:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Dorsal acetabular rim fracture.
In one case, cup impaction led to a rim fracture preventing stem placement:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Zurich mini-cementless THA was successful in 9/10 hips in dogs <4 kg, with no lameness at 52 weeks in completed cases.
  • Helsinki Chronic Pain Index significantly improved from a mean of 19.8 to 2.3 at 52 weeks (p = 0.0141).
  • Fluoroscopy improved implant positioning, especially in LCPD and HD cases, aiding in accurate reaming and alignment.
  • Intraoperative complications occurred in 2/10 cases, including acetabular fractures; one case required discontinuation.
  • Prophylactic bicortical screws and reinforcement plates were used in cases with rotational instability or cortical compromise and were effective in preventing loosening/fractures.
  • Medial patellar luxation improved postoperatively in one dog, though recurrence was noted later without surgical correction.
  • No stem or implant loosening or fracture occurred over a mean follow-up of 24.4 months.
  • CT is recommended in preoperative planning, particularly in luxoid hip dysplasia cases with uncertain bone stock.

Kimura

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Long‐term outcomes of 10 dogs weighing less than 4 kg after Zurich mini‐cementless total hip arthroplasty

2025-6-VS-kimura-4

Article Title: Long‐term outcomes of 10 dogs weighing less than 4 kg after Zurich mini‐cementless total hip arthroplasty

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the most common indication for revision surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Seven of the nine dogs underwent revision due to prosthetic luxation, most commonly ventral.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Luxation.
Seven of the nine dogs underwent revision due to prosthetic luxation, most commonly ventral.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Scott

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs

2025-3-VS-scott-1

Article Title: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine 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: Pelvic & Spinal Surgery
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.