In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, how were bone plates adapted preoperatively?
A. Manually contoured intraoperatively
B. Shaped using traditional radiographs
C. Contoured to mirrored 3D-printed hemipelves
D. Contoured to a generic canine pelvic model
E. Shaped post-reduction using bone forceps
Answer: Contoured to mirrored 3D-printed hemipelves
Explanation: The technique used mirrored 3D-printed models of the contralateral hemipelvis for patient-specific plate contouring.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the maximum fracture gap observed postoperatively in the cadaver study?
A. <0.5 mm
B. 1.5 mm
C. <2 mm
D. >2 mm
E. Not reported
Answer: <2 mm
Explanation: All fracture repairs in cadavers showed <2 mm gaps, meeting the target accuracy of reduction.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the functional outcome for the clinical case treated with this technique?
A. Non-weight bearing at 1 month
B. Weight bearing delayed until 4 weeks
C. Non-union at 3 months
D. Weight bearing within 24 hours and healed at 3 months
E. Plate removed at 2 weeks
Answer: Weight bearing within 24 hours and healed at 3 months
Explanation: The Chihuahua case showed rapid functional recovery and confirmed radiographic healing by 3 months.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was a key advantage of using locking screws in the plate application?
A. Allowed dynamic compression across the fracture
B. Improved resistance to infection
C. Eliminated need for radiographic guidance
D. Enhanced reduction through fixed-angle stability
E. Allowed placement over cartilage
Answer: Enhanced reduction through fixed-angle stability
Explanation: Locking screws provided fixed-angle stability and helped maintain reduction, especially across the broad plate span.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the most likely advantage of using locking screws during the procedure?
A. Increased interfragmentary compression
B. Faster surgical time
C. Increased bone density
D. Preservation of soft tissue
E. Facilitated reduction due to fixed angle mechanics
Answer: Facilitated reduction due to fixed angle mechanics
Explanation: Locking screws provided fixed-angle stability that helped maintain reduction despite longer working length and lack of compression.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the observed rate of sciatic nerve injury in cadaveric repairs?
A. Observed in all cadavers
B. Observed in 3 of 5 cadavers
C. Only observed with caudal approach
D. One mild case out of five
E. All nerves showed severe injury
Answer: One mild case out of five
Explanation: Only one cadaver had mild sciatic nerve injury; others had no injury on gross dissection.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the purpose of using mirrored 3D-printed hemipelves in the cadaveric and clinical cases?
A. To calculate femoral torsion
B. To simulate bilateral fractures
C. To contour patient-specific bone plates
D. To test fluoroscopic accuracy
E. To replicate neurologic structures
Answer: To contour patient-specific bone plates
Explanation: Plates were pre-contoured to mirrored hemipelves to match normal anatomy for each individual case.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the median postoperative fracture gap reported in canine cadavers?
A. >3 mm
B. 2–3 mm
C. <2 mm
D. 1.5–2.5 mm
E. >5 mm
Answer: <2 mm
Explanation: The median postoperative fracture gap was consistently less than 2 mm in all cadaver specimens, demonstrating precise fracture reduction.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was a reported potential benefit of the minimally invasive approach compared to traditional open techniques?
A. Ability to avoid fluoroscopy
B. Direct visual assessment of sciatic nerve
C. Higher rate of compression
D. Reduced retraction-related nerve injury
E. Shorter plate working length
Answer: Reduced retraction-related nerve injury
Explanation: Reduced risk to the sciatic nerve was noted, likely due to avoidance of direct retraction and protection by preserved soft tissues.
In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, how did the clinical case dog recover following minimally invasive acetabular fracture repair?
A. Non-weight bearing for 6 weeks
B. Required revision surgery
C. Weight-bearing within 24 hours, full healing at 3 months
D. Partial healing with persistent lameness
E. Developed severe sciatic nerve deficits
Answer: Weight-bearing within 24 hours, full healing at 3 months
Explanation: The clinical case recovered rapidly, bearing weight within 1 day and showing full healing by 3 months.