← Articles

Cheon et al: Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both patient-specific and universal guides yielded correction errors <2°, with no statistically significant difference in accuracy.
  • Universal guide corrected aLDFA up to 24° and AA up to 20°, addressing multiplanar deformities effectively.
  • Patient-specific guides allowed for preoperative simulation, providing more stable pin placement and potentially aiding less-experienced surgeons.
  • Universal guide eliminated the need for CT-based customization, reducing time and cost.
  • Cadaver and bone model trials showed consistent accuracy, validating both methods in vitro and ex vivo.
  • No significant differences in outcome when correcting uniplanar (aLDFA) vs biplanar (aLDFA + AA) deformities.
  • Universal guide's fixed size presented limitations in small dogs, potentially requiring multiple size options.
  • Universal guide showed potential for standard use, offering repeatable outcomes with minimal prep despite needing precise intraoperative placement.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Cheon et al: Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both patient-specific and universal guides yielded correction errors <2°, with no statistically significant difference in accuracy.
  • Universal guide corrected aLDFA up to 24° and AA up to 20°, addressing multiplanar deformities effectively.
  • Patient-specific guides allowed for preoperative simulation, providing more stable pin placement and potentially aiding less-experienced surgeons.
  • Universal guide eliminated the need for CT-based customization, reducing time and cost.
  • Cadaver and bone model trials showed consistent accuracy, validating both methods in vitro and ex vivo.
  • No significant differences in outcome when correcting uniplanar (aLDFA) vs biplanar (aLDFA + AA) deformities.
  • Universal guide's fixed size presented limitations in small dogs, potentially requiring multiple size options.
  • Universal guide showed potential for standard use, offering repeatable outcomes with minimal prep despite needing precise intraoperative placement.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, what correction capacities were designed into the universal guide?

A. Up to 30° for both aLDFA and AA
B. Up to 15° for aLDFA, 10° for AA
C. Up to 20° for both aLDFA and AA
D. Up to 24° for aLDFA, 20° for AA
E. Guide was not designed for angle correction

Answer: Up to 24° for aLDFA, 20° for AA

Explanation: The universal guide corrected up to 24° of aLDFA and 20° of anteversion angle.
In Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, what was a notable advantage of the patient-specific guide?

A. Reduced surgical time without planning
B. No imaging required
C. No software needed
D. Simulated pre-op corrections
E. Required fewer instruments

Answer: Simulated pre-op corrections

Explanation: Patient-specific guides allowed preoperative simulation and precise planning.
In Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, which of the following was a limitation of the universal guide?

A. High cost and long prep time
B. Patient-specific design required
C. CT imaging was mandatory
D. Single-size design may not suit all dogs
E. Reduced correction accuracy

Answer: Single-size design may not suit all dogs

Explanation: The universal guide struggled with fit in small dogs due to its one-size design.
In Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, what was the overall mean angular correction error found using both patient-specific and universal guides?

A. Less than 1°
B. 1–2°
C. 2–3°
D. Greater than 3°
E. Dependent on guide type

Answer: Less than 2°

Explanation: Mean errors were under 2° for both guide types, with no statistical difference.
In Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, how did correction accuracy compare between uniplanar and biplanar deformities?

A. Biplanar corrections were significantly less accurate
B. Biplanar corrections had better accuracy
C. Uniplanar corrections failed more often
D. No significant difference found
E. Biplanar corrections showed higher plate failure

Answer: No significant difference found

Explanation: The study found no significant difference between uniplanar and biplanar correction outcomes.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Get Instant Access

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology Journal Issue

Guénégo

 et al: 

Modified Cranial Closing Wedge Osteotomy (AMA-Based CCWO) to Treat Cranial Cruciate Ligament Deficient Stifle in 204 Dogs Over 50 Kg

Cheon

 et al: 

Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs

Lin

 et al: 

Does the Craniolateral Approach Provide Better Exposure to the Radius than the Craniomedial Approach for Internal Fracture Fixation in Dogs?

Sullivan

 et al: 

Biomechanical Comparison of Spacer Pin Fixation to Two Established Methods of Tibial Tuberosity Transposition Stabilization in Dogs

Trefny

 et al: 

Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate