← Articles

Philips et al: Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Overall accuracy of radiography to detect IAIP: 77.9%

Sensitivity: 97.2%
Specificity: 67.6%

False positive rate: 32.4% of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating

Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle had higher misclassification (23.8%) than medial (8.3%)

Most accurate detection: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint (97.2% correct classification)

Least agreement: For implants placed at 0 mm (subchondral level), especially lateral (AC1 = 0.48)

No palpable abnormalities (e.g., crepitus) observed during ROM for any group

No significant difference in detection by specialty field or reviewer qualification

Suggests radiographic misclassification risk and supports considering CT/fluoroscopy in equivocal cases

Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study

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

Philips et al: Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study
Veterinary Surgery 3, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

Overall accuracy of radiography to detect IAIP: 77.9%

Sensitivity: 97.2%
Specificity: 67.6%

False positive rate: 32.4% of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating

Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle had higher misclassification (23.8%) than medial (8.3%)

Most accurate detection: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint (97.2% correct classification)

Least agreement: For implants placed at 0 mm (subchondral level), especially lateral (AC1 = 0.48)

No palpable abnormalities (e.g., crepitus) observed during ROM for any group

No significant difference in detection by specialty field or reviewer qualification

Suggests radiographic misclassification risk and supports considering CT/fluoroscopy in equivocal cases

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 Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what percentage of non-penetrating implants were incorrectly classified as penetrating the joint?

A. 16.8%
B. 24.7%
C. 32.4%
D. 38.5%
E. 44.1%

Answer: 32.4%

Explanation: Nearly one-third (32.4%) of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, how did implants placed 2 mm into the joint perform in terms of accurate classification?

A. 55.3% correct
B. 71.8% correct
C. 82.6% correct
D. 97.2% correct
E. 100% correct

Answer: 97.2% correct

Explanation: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint were correctly classified in 97.2% of cases.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, which implant direction was more likely to be misclassified as penetrating the joint?

A. Medial condyle at −2 mm
B. Lateral condyle at −2 mm
C. Medial condyle at 0 mm
D. Medial condyle at 2 mm
E. Lateral condyle at 2 mm

Answer: Lateral condyle at −2 mm

Explanation: Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle were misclassified more often (23.8%).
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what was the overall accuracy of radiography to detect intra-articular implant penetration (IAIP) in the canine stifle?

A. 62.1%
B. 70.4%
C. 77.9%
D. 85.2%
E. 91.3%

Answer: 77.9%

Explanation: The overall accuracy of radiographic IAIP detection in cadaveric canine stifles was 77.9%.
In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, what was the reported sensitivity and specificity of radiography?

A. 85% sensitivity, 82% specificity
B. 90% sensitivity, 71% specificity
C. 97.2% sensitivity, 67.6% specificity
D. 99% sensitivity, 60% specificity
E. 94.5% sensitivity, 76% specificity

Answer: 97.2% sensitivity, 67.6% specificity

Explanation: Radiography showed high sensitivity (97.2%) but moderate specificity (67.6%) in this study.

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 Surgery Journal Issue

Logothetou

 et al: 

Complications and influence of cutaneous closure technique on subdermal plexus flaps in 97 dogs (2006–2022)

Burton

 et al: 

Design and topographic evaluation of a canine humeral anatomic plating system (CHAPS)

Cantatore

 et al: 

Submucosal resection via a transanal approach for treatment of epithelial rectal tumors – a multicenter study

Peycke

 et al: 

Center of rotation of angulation-based leveling osteotomy for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature dogs

Peng

 et al: 

Comparison of remote and in-person respiratory function grading of brachycephalic dogs