Quiz Question

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.

🔍 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?

🔥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 Kang 2024 et al., on sacroiliac fixation strength, what was the primary failure mode for the double 2.3-mm HCS group?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Failure was typically within the sacral bone; no screw head pullout noted in HCS group
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cancellous bone failure in sacrum.
Failure was typically within the sacral bone; no screw head pullout noted in HCS group

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 20 cats with pelvic fractures treated using locking plates with only cortical screws
  • 28 fractures stabilized (ilium: 17, acetabulum: 6, ischium: 3, pubis: 2)
  • Implants: Primarily 1.5/2.0 mm LCPs or String-of-Pearls plates
  • Major complications in 2/20 cases (10%): sciatic entrapment, malunion requiring THA
  • Minor complications in 2/20 cases (10%): plate impingement, transient lameness
  • Clinical union in all cats by 8 weeks; all cats returned to full function
  • Authors conclude cortical screws alone can provide adequate fixation in feline pelvic fractures if screw purchase and bone quality are sufficient

Kang

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Biomechanical Comparison of Double 2.3-mm Headless Cannulated Self-Compression Screws and Single 3.5-mm Cortical Screw in Lag Fashion in a Canine Sacroiliac Luxation Model

2024-1-VCOT-kang-2

Article Title: Biomechanical Comparison of Double 2.3-mm Headless Cannulated Self-Compression Screws and Single 3.5-mm Cortical Screw in Lag Fashion in a Canine Sacroiliac Luxation Model

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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, what was the impact of implant positioning (neutral vs valgus) on biomechanical performance?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Positioning did not significantly influence mechanical outcomes in this ex vivo model.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant effect.
Positioning did not significantly influence mechanical outcomes in this ex vivo model.

🔍 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-5

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 Poggi 2024 et al., on laparoscopic resection of pancreatic masses in dogs, what was the most common histopathologic diagnosis among the pancreatic masses resected laparoscopically?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 9 of 12 dogs had insulinomas, making it the most frequent diagnosis.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Insulinoma.
9 of 12 dogs had insulinomas, making it the most frequent diagnosis.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Laparoscopic pancreatic mass resection (LPMR) was successfully performed in all 12 dogs, with no conversion to open laparotomy required.
  • Median operative time was 69 minutes (range 35–100 min); 11/12 dogs were discharged within 48 hours, and one was discharged after 7 days.
  • No major intraoperative complications occurred; minor complications included mild bleeding (2/12) and cannula malfunction (1/12).
  • All dogs survived the procedure and were discharged.
  • Histopathology confirmed neoplasia in all dogs: 9 insulinomas and 3 pancreatic carcinomas; all tumors were completely excised with clear margins.
  • No recurrences were reported; 3 dogs died of unrelated causes, and 9 were still alive at the time of reporting.
  • No postoperative hypoglycemia was observed; 1 dog had transient hyperglycemia, and minor complications included vomiting, idiopathic seizures, and pancreatitis, all of which resolved.
  • Authors concluded that LPMR is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive alternative to open surgery for selected distal pancreatic masses in dogs.

Poggi

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic masses in 12 dogs

2024-5-VS-poggi-2

Article Title: Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic masses in 12 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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, what complication was observed in some short screw cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Three cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS) had caudal screws impinging the ventral sacral foramina.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ventral sacral foraminal impingement.
Three cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS) had caudal screws impinging the ventral sacral foramina.

🔍 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-4

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 Papacella-Beugger 2024 et al., which anatomical limitation required a custom reference array?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Human trackers were too large for miniature dogs; a 3D-printed lightweight array was used instead:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Small spinous processes in miniature breeds.
Human trackers were too large for miniature dogs; a 3D-printed lightweight array was used instead:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Cadaveric study using 3 miniature breed dogs (6 hemipelves) to assess spinal neuronavigation accuracy for lumbar plate fixation
  • 20 screws placed using CBCT-based navigation with real-time tracking
  • 85% (17/20) of screws were safely and accurately placed
  • Median deviation of screw entry points from plan: 1.8 mm
  • All 3 misplaced screws occurred in a single cadaver, attributed to inexperienced drill handling
  • Custom 3D-printed lightweight tracking array was necessary due to small spinous processes in miniature dogs
  • No iatrogenic canal perforations or vertebral damage in any specimen
  • Concludes neuronavigation offers precise, safe placement of spinal implants in small dogs, with minimal anatomic disruption

Papacella

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Spinal Neuronavigation for Lumbar Plate Fixation in Miniature Breed Dogs

2024-6-VCOT-papacella-beugger-5

Article Title: Spinal Neuronavigation for Lumbar Plate Fixation in Miniature Breed Dogs

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 Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, which surgeon had significantly higher odds of success?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Surgeon 2, who also designed the guides, had the highest odds (OR = 9.61, p = .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Surgeon 2.
Surgeon 2, who also designed the guides, had the highest odds (OR = 9.61, p = .001).

🔍 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-5

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 Nicolas 2024 et al., what postoperative outcome was observed at 1 month?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The dog showed only a slight forelimb lameness, with no pain or neurologic deficit:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Slight thoracic limb lameness.
The dog showed only a slight forelimb lameness, with no pain or neurologic deficit:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 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-2

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?

🔥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 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.

🔍 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?

🔥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.