Quiz Question

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}.

šŸ” 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?

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 Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was the rate of acceptable pin placement using 3D-printed guides?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The 3DPG group had an acceptable placement rate of 87.5% vs 69.8% in FH group.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 87.5%.
The 3DPG group had an acceptable placement rate of 87.5% vs 69.8% in FH group.

šŸ” 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-1

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?

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 Nicolas 2024 et al., what was a key advantage of the lateral scapular osteotomy approach versus dorsal or ventral routes?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The approach offered good foramen access while preserving articular facets and minimizing spinal disruption:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Avoided thoracic entry and preserved vertebral stability.
The approach offered good foramen access while preserving articular facets and minimizing spinal disruption:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

šŸ” Key Findings Summary

  • The lateral approach via scapular osteotomy allowed safe access to the T1-2 foramen in a French Bulldog with foraminal disc extrusion.
  • A mini-hemilaminectomy was performed, preserving articular facets.
  • The dog had no neurologic deficits postoperatively, returned to ambulation within 24 hours, and was discharged in 3 days.
  • At 10 months, CT confirmed excellent scapular healing and no recurrence.
  • Double 2.4-mm locking plates provided stable fixation across the scapular spine.
  • The technique avoided thoracic entry or dorsal spine dissection, suggesting a less invasive alternative for select T1-2 foraminal cases.

Nicolas

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

2024-2-VCOT-nicolas-4

Article Title: Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

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 Miller 2025 et al., on spinal drill guide accuracy, what was a reported technical benefit of the SOP plate when used with the 3D-printed guides?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The plate helped realign vertebrae during screw placement, effectively serving as a reduction aid.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Acted as a reduction guide.
The plate helped realign vertebrae during screw placement, effectively serving as a reduction aid.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • 3D-printed, SOP plate-specific guides enabled safe screw placement from T12–L5 in canine cadavers and models.
  • All 140 screw trajectories were classified as Zdichavski Grade 1, indicating optimal placement without vertebral canal breach.
  • Screw angles (cranial-caudal and transverse) matched preoperative planning, with no significant deviation.
  • Entry/exit point deviations were <1 mm on average, deemed clinically negligible.
  • Drill guides were quick to place (<30 sec per vertebra) and improved ease of surgery.
  • Plates acted as effective reduction tools, guiding alignment during screw placement in mobile spines.
  • Minor technical challenges arose from cadaveric spine mobility, mitigated by sequential screw insertion.
  • Technique may enable future use in fracture/luxation reduction, pending further cadaveric and clinical trials.

Miller

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Development and testing of an animal-specific and string-of-pearls (SOP) plate specific, three-dimensionally (3D) printed drilling guide: A proof of concept study for canine thoracolumbar spinal stabilization

2025-6-VS-miller-3

Article Title: Development and testing of an animal-specific and string-of-pearls (SOP) plate specific, three-dimensionally (3D) printed drilling guide: A proof of concept study for canine thoracolumbar spinal stabilization

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 Violini 2024 et al., on 3D-guided spinal stabilization in brachycephalic dogs, what percentage of pedicle screws achieved optimal placement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 84% of pedicle screws were fully contained within the pedicle and vertebral body (Grade I):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 84%.
84% of pedicle screws were fully contained within the pedicle and vertebral body (Grade I):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Spinal stabilization with 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides (3D-PSGs) was safe, with no immediate perioperative complications reported.
  • 84% of pedicle screws were optimally placed, and only 0.5% breached the spinal canal, reflecting high placement accuracy.
  • 80% of dogs experienced no neurologic deterioration postoperatively, indicating reliable short-term safety.
  • 3D-PSGs were accurate and reproducible, even across multiple institutions and surgeons.
  • Mid-term outcomes were favorable: all dogs were ambulatory, and 90% had static or improved neurologic signs.
  • 7 of 10 mid-term follow-ups showed abnormal gait, though owners rated lifestyle ≄3/5, suggesting acceptable function.
  • 3D-printed guides enabled precise pedicle screw placement in deformed vertebrae, expanding options in small breeds.
  • One dog suffered a T4 spinous process fracture due to overextension of PMMA cement, emphasizing the need for cement placement caution.

Violini

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

2024-4-VS-violini-1

Article Title: Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

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 Deveci 2025 et al., on 3D drill guides, what was the median grade of sacral canal wall cortical breach?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All screws had cortical breaches ≤ grade 2, but the median breach grade was 0 (IQR 0–1).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.
All screws had cortical breaches ≤ grade 2, but the median breach grade was 0 (IQR 0–1).

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Objective: Evaluate feasibility and accuracy of 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides for iliosacral screw placement in cadaver dogs.
  • N = 10 canine cadavers (20 hemipelves); screw placement done using fluoroscopic-assisted patient-specific guides (PSG).
  • Median cortical breach grade: 0 (IQR 0–1) for all screws.
    19/20 screws breached sacral canal wall (all ≤ grade 2), but no screws breached canal contents (grade 3).
  • Median trajectory deviation: 0.88° transverse, 0.72° dorsal.
  • Procedure time: Median 7.2 minutes for guide placement and drilling.
  • Conclusions: PSG-assisted screw placement was safe, accurate, and fast, offering clinical potential in pelvic trauma.

Deveci

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Evaluation of 3D‐printed patient‐specific guides to facilitate fluoroscopic‐assisted iliosacral screw placement in dogs

2025-2-VS-deveci-1

Article Title: Evaluation of 3D‐printed patient‐specific guides to facilitate fluoroscopic‐assisted iliosacral screw 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 Ciammaichella 2025 et al., on lymphadenectomy complications, which lymphadenectomy site had the highest rate of postoperative complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Ilio-sacral lymphadenectomy had a 41% postoperative complication rate, the highest among the groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ilio-sacral.
Ilio-sacral lymphadenectomy had a 41% postoperative complication rate, the highest among the groups.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Ilio-sacral lymphadenectomy had the highest complication rates: intraoperative (7%) and postoperative (41%)
  • Axillary lymphadenectomy showed the lowest complication rates: intraoperative (1%) and postoperative (16%)
  • Enlarged or metastatic lymph nodes were significantly associated with intraoperative complications (p = .030)
  • Postoperative complications were mostly minor (Grade 1) and self-limiting (seromas, edema)
  • Medial retropharyngeal lymphadenectomy had intermediate complication rates: postoperative complications in 26%
  • No significant predictors retained significance in multivariate analysis
  • Use of methylene blue was associated with fewer complications, although not statistically significant
  • Complication rates did not result in mortality, and all were manageable; MST was 374 days

Ciammaichella

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Complications of medial retropharyngeal, axillary, and ilio-sacral lymphadenectomy in 127 dogs with malignant tumors

2025-7-VS-ciammaichella-1

Article Title: Complications of medial retropharyngeal, axillary, and ilio-sacral lymphadenectomy in 127 dogs with malignant tumors

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 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.

šŸ” 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?

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was a notable complication observed postoperatively in some cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. One case had low-grade infection and osteolysis potentially linked to metal debris.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Osteolysis possibly associated with metallic debris.
One case had low-grade infection and osteolysis potentially linked to metal debris.

šŸ” 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-4

Article Title: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine 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 Fitzpatrick 2024 et al., on ESF for pelvic fractures in cats, what was concluded regarding neurological complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Some cats presented with pre-existing deficits, but no new neurologic injuries occurred from ESF placement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No iatrogenic neurological deficits were observed.
Some cats presented with pre-existing deficits, but no new neurologic injuries occurred from ESF placement.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • External skeletal fixation (ESF) was successfully applied to a variety of pelvic fracture types in cats, including sacroiliac luxations and ilial body fractures.
  • All fractures achieved radiographic union within 9 weeks, even in comminuted or complex configurations.
  • No intraoperative or long-term complications were reported during the study period.
  • Implant loosening was observed radiographically in 13% of cases, with 8% of pins found to be loose at frame removal.
  • ESF enabled indirect fracture reduction using components as handles, with a limited open approach minimizing soft tissue disruption.
  • No iatrogenic neurological deficits were observed, supporting safe pin placement near neurovascular structures, although some cats presented with pre-existing neurologic signs.
  • No cases required revision surgery, and all cats underwent stabilization solely with ESF as per study inclusion criteria.
  • Postoperative hospitalization ranged from 2 to 5 days, though no comparison to other fixation types was evaluated.

Fitzpatrick

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures in cats

2024-7-VS-fitzpatrick-3

Article Title: External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures in cats

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: Pelvic & Spinal Surgery
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.