Quiz Question
In McLean 2024 et al., why might ECA not have correlated with rock-back in this study?
🔍 Key Findings Summary
- 95 TPLO procedures reviewed retrospectively with follow-up radiographs
- Rock-back defined as increase in tibial plateau angle (TPA) ≥2° from immediate post-op to recheck
- 21% of stifles (20/95) experienced rock-back
- Mean ΔTPA among rock-back cases = 3.2° ± 2.6°
- No implant failures or tibial tuberosity fractures were reported in these cases
- Plate inclination and exit cut angle (ECA) were not associated with increased risk of rock-back (p = 0.4 and 0.2)
- Authors hypothesize that compression across osteotomy in vivo may mitigate torsional effects from ECA, unlike in gap-model studies
- Emphasizes that rock-back is relatively common, even with well-placed implants
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology
6
2024
Effect of Plate Inclination and Osteotomy Positioning on Rock-back following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy in Dogs
2024-6-VCOT-mclean-5
In Schmutterer 2024 et al., what was concluded regarding femorotibial kinematics when changing flexion angles?
🔍 Key Findings Summary
- Biomechanical study on 14 hindlimbs from Retrievers (cadaveric)
- Three stifle flexion angles tested: 125°, 135°, and 145°
- Contact Force Ratio (CFR) was significantly higher at 125° and 135° than at 145° (p < 0.001)
- Center of force shifted caudally with increasing flexion — especially in medial meniscus
- Lateral meniscus peak pressure was significantly higher at 125° than 145° (p = 0.049)
- Mean pressures on lateral meniscus decreased with extension, while medial meniscus pressure remained constant
- Relevance: Helps interpret meniscal load in early cruciate disease and in surgical modeling
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology
3
2024
Evaluation of Meniscal Load and Load Distribution in the Sound Canine Stifle at Different Angles of Flexion
2024-3-VCOT-schmutterer-5
In Alvarez 2024 et al., which method combination led to increased craniolateral compression without enhancing caudal pressure?
🔍 Key Findings Summary
- F + P (forceps + plate compression) achieved the most uniform, high-pressure distribution across all quadrants.
- Kern forceps alone concentrated force in craniomedial quadrant, reducing caudal compression.
- Combining Kern + F improved craniolateral compression but did not restore caudal compression.
- Plate compression alone yielded caudal bias, not uniform pressure.
- Significant inter-method variation in quadrant-specific compression confirmed via ANOVA (p < 0.001 for all quadrants).
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology
2
2024
In Vitro Assessment of Compression Patterns Using Different Methods to Achieve Interfragmentary Compression during Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy
2024-2-VCOT-alvarez-3
In Whitney 2022 et al., on CBLO fixation strength, which variable was found to have **no significant effect** on construct stiffness, yield load, or ultimate load in CBLO testing?
🔍 Key Findings
- CBLO fixation with both a headless compression screw (HCS) and tension band (TB) showed the highest yield and ultimate loads compared to other configurations
- HCSTB constructs had significantly higher yield load (1212 N) and ultimate load (1388 N) than Plate alone (788 N, 774 N), HCS alone (907 N, 927 N), or TB alone (1016 N, 1076 N)
- No difference in construct stiffness was detected among the four fixation methods tested
- All constructs ultimately failed by bone fracture—location of failure differed by construct type (e.g., through HCS hole or cranial screw hole)
- TB and HCSTB groups showed failure via progressive TB stretching and cranial osteotomy widening, while Plate and HCS failed more abruptly
- All constructs withstood forces exceeding expected quadriceps load in vivo (170–325 N), suggesting all methods can resist physiological loading, but HCSTB provides greater safety margin
- HCS alone was not significantly stronger than Plate or TB alone, questioning its standalone superiority
- Study supports using TB and HCS together for optimal construct strength, but clinical studies are needed to validate implant fatigue, healing, and failure rates
Veterinary Surgery
1
2022
Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of four Center of Rotation Angulation Based Leveling Osteotomy fixation methods
2022-1-VS-whitney-5
In Schmutterer 2024 et al., on stifle flexion angle effects, how did the center of force shift during increased stifle flexion?
🔍 Key Findings Summary
- Biomechanical study on 14 hindlimbs from Retrievers (cadaveric)
- Three stifle flexion angles tested: 125°, 135°, and 145°
- Contact Force Ratio (CFR) was significantly higher at 125° and 135° than at 145° (p < 0.001)
- Center of force shifted caudally with increasing flexion — especially in medial meniscus
- Lateral meniscus peak pressure was significantly higher at 125° than 145° (p = 0.049)
- Mean pressures on lateral meniscus decreased with extension, while medial meniscus pressure remained constant
- Relevance: Helps interpret meniscal load in early cruciate disease and in surgical modeling
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology
3
2024
Evaluation of Meniscal Load and Load Distribution in the Sound Canine Stifle at Different Angles of Flexion
2024-3-VCOT-schmutterer-2
Quiz Results
You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly
Key Findings