Quiz Question

In Moreira 2024 et al., which CCWO technique resulted in the lowest mean prediction error for postoperative TPA?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The Slocum method, based on tibial plateau and cranial cortex alignment, had the lowest mean TPA error (–0.7°).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Slocum-type wedge.
The Slocum method, based on tibial plateau and cranial cortex alignment, had the lowest mean TPA error (–0.7°).

2024-1-VS-moreira-1

Article Title:

Journal:

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 Sullivan 2025 et al., on TTT stabilization methods, what theoretical advantage does the spacer pin technique offer?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Avoiding tuberosity pins may reduce risk of soft tissue irritation or fracture.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Avoids placing pins through tuberosity.
Avoiding tuberosity pins may reduce risk of soft tissue irritation or fracture.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Spacer pin fixation showed no difference in failure force or stiffness compared to tension band wire (TBW) or 2-pin techniques.
  • All constructs failed under loads >1000 N, exceeding estimated peak quadriceps force in dogs during walking (~240 N).
  • Patellar ligament failure was the most common mode of failure across all groups (5–8 samples per group).
  • Distal tibial crest fractures were seen only in 2-pin and spacer pin groups, not in TBW group, suggesting TBW may protect against crest failure.
  • No failures occurred at pin tracts, possibly due to pin placement within patellar ligament footprint.
  • Spacer pin technique avoids placing pins through the tuberosity, potentially reducing risks of soft tissue complications like tendinopathy or irritation.
  • Use of partial osteotomy with robust distal crest may substitute for TBW without compromising initial mechanical strength.
  • Further in vivo or cyclic loading studies are required, as this cadaveric study tested only acute tensile failure.

Sullivan

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

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

2025-3-VCOT-sullivan-4

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

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

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The universal guide corrected up to 24° of aLDFA and 20° of anteversion angle.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Up to 24° for aLDFA, 20° for AA.
The universal guide corrected up to 24° of aLDFA and 20° of anteversion angle.

🔍 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.

Cheon

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

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

2025-3-VCOT-cheon-2

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

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 Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, what intramedullary pin diameter was associated with the highest biomechanical performance?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1.6 mm (50% fill).
Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 2.4 mm LCP with a 1.6 mm IM pin had the highest axial stiffness and yield strength among the tested constructs.
  • Axial stiffness was significantly higher in the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm IM pin group compared to 2.7 mm LCP alone (p = .013).
  • No significant difference in torsional stiffness was found among groups.
  • 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin had the lowest stiffness and failure load, underperforming both other constructs.
  • All constructs failed via valgus bending, consistent with clinical observations in feline tibial fractures.
  • A 1.6 mm pin (~50% canal fill) resulted in superior construct performance vs. 1.0 mm (~30% fill).
  • Group 2 (2.4 LCP + 1.6 mm pin) outperformed the 2.7 mm LCP alone in stiffness, despite using a smaller plate.
  • Plate–rod constructs may better preserve periosteal blood supply and support minimally invasive stabilization strategies.

Gutbrod

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia

2024-4-VS-gutbrod-3

Article Title: Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia

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 Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, how did correction accuracy compare between uniplanar and biplanar deformities?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found no significant difference between uniplanar and biplanar correction outcomes.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant difference found.
The study found no significant difference between uniplanar and biplanar correction outcomes.

🔍 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.

Cheon

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

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

2025-3-VCOT-cheon-5

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

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 Mazdarani 2025 et al., on simulated muscle loading, what was the clinical significance of using hip mobility in limb press models?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Hip mobility improved the physiologic realism of simulated quadriceps forces.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It allowed force ratios closer to in vivo values.
Hip mobility improved the physiologic realism of simulated quadriceps forces.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Simulated quadriceps and gastrocnemius forces increased proportionally with axial load in all three femoral fixation models.
  • Model 2 (rigid fixation) resulted in subphysiologic quadriceps forces and abnormally high gastrocnemius forces, reducing model fidelity.
  • Models 1 and 3 (with hip mobility) produced more physiologic quadriceps and force ratios, especially under 30–40% bodyweight loads.
  • Force ratios were significantly lower in rigid fixation (Model 2) compared to hip-mobile models (p = .007), suggesting model design affects simulated muscle coordination.
  • Joint angles (stifle and hock) remained within acceptable limits, though slight flexion occurred with increasing load.
  • Relative foot position differed by ~3.9 mm between models 2 and 3, with model 2 showing a more caudal position.
  • Model 3 preserved benefits of hip mobility while allowing radiographic documentation, making it a preferred setup for future studies.
  • The study suggests that models used in feline stifle stabilization research may underestimate physiologic forces, especially with rigid fixation designs.

Mazdarani

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press

2025-5-VS-mazdarani-5

Article Title: Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press

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 Allaith 2023 et al., on THR outcomes, which implant types were associated with increased complications following femoral head and neck excision?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Multivariable analysis showed significantly increased complications using BFX and Helica implants for revision after femoral head and neck excision.
Incorrect. The correct answer is BioMedtrix BFX and Helica.
Multivariable analysis showed significantly increased complications using BFX and Helica implants for revision after femoral head and neck excision.

🔍 Key Findings

From Allaith et al., 2023 – Outcomes from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry

  • 2375 total hip replacements were analyzed across 1852 dogs, making this the largest multiuser canine THR dataset to date.
  • Most common indications for THR were hip dysplasia (51%) and osteoarthritis (34%).
  • Implants used included Kyon (46%), BioMedtrix CFX (22%), Hybrid (11%), BFX (9%), and Helica (4.5%).
  • Veterinary-reported complication rate was 8.5%, while owner-reported was 23%, with moderate agreement (k=0.44).
  • Most common complications: Luxation, femoral fracture, and aseptic loosening.
  • BioMedtrix BFX and Helica implants had a higher risk of complications when used after femoral head and neck excision (P = .031).
  • Postoperative LOAD scores significantly improved vs preoperative (21 → 11; P < .0001), supporting improved mobility.
  • Owner satisfaction was high, with 88% rating outcome as very good or good.

Allaith

Veterinary Surgery

2

2023

Outcomes and complications reported from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry over a 10-year period

2023-2-VS-allaith-2

Article Title: Outcomes and complications reported from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry over a 10-year period

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 Longo 2022 et al., on CT-guided osteotomies, what was the most common osteotomy location used in this study?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Femoral diaphyseal osteotomies were most commonly performed (10/22).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Femoral diaphysis.
Femoral diaphyseal osteotomies were most commonly performed (10/22).

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D CT volume rendering and CAL measurement successfully guided correction of femoral and tibial torsion in dogs with patellar luxation (PL).
  • Physiological patellar tracking was restored in 100% (22/22) of cases after detorsional osteotomy.
  • 94% of dogs (17/18) had either full or acceptable functional outcomes post-surgery.
  • CAL-based correction was accurate in 19/22 cases, confirming reliability of the measurement technique.
  • Complication rate was 45%, with major complications in 2/22 cases—both involved combined femoral and tibial osteotomies.
  • Combined femoral and tibial osteotomies in the same limb were linked to a higher risk of complications and poorer outcomes.
  • Diaphyseal osteotomies offered more implant space, but metaphyseal locations were associated with faster bone healing.
  • Use of a TPLO jig or goniometer was not essential—CAL-based bone marking was sufficient in most cases.

Longo

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Three‐dimensional volume rendering planning, surgical treatment, and clinical outcomes for femoral and tibial detorsional osteotomies in dogs

2022-7-VS-longo-4

Article Title: Three‐dimensional volume rendering planning, surgical treatment, and clinical outcomes for femoral and tibial detorsional osteotomies in 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 Wilson 2025 et al., on acetabular measurement accuracy, which method demonstrated the highest intra- and interobserver reliability?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The acetabular circle method on VD view (ACVD) showed the highest intra- and interobserver agreement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is ACVD.
The acetabular circle method on VD view (ACVD) showed the highest intra- and interobserver agreement.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 73 hips from 60 dogs undergoing cementless THR.
Methods evaluated:

  • ACVD/ACOLL (acetabular circle on VD or OLL view)
  • ALVD/ALOLL (acetabular line)
  • FHCVD/FHCOLL/FHCCCHB (femoral head circle)
Findings:
  • Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver consistency were excellent for ACVD and ACOLL.
  • FHC methods consistently underestimated actual cup size by 2.4–3.6 mm.
  • AC and AL methods had low bias (±0.5 mm) and better predictive value.
  • OA severity negatively affected the accuracy of all measurements (p < .05).
  • Highest predictive accuracy was ~49% using ACVD with rounding down protocol.

Wilson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in dogs

2025-1-VS-wilson-1

Article Title: Evaluation of three acetabular measurement methods for total hip replacement in 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 Lomas 2025 et al., on hybrid THR in cats, what was the most common indication for total hip replacement (THR) in this cohort?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. SCFE accounted for 13 out of 17 hips treated, making it the most common indication.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Slipped capital femoral epiphysis.
SCFE accounted for 13 out of 17 hips treated, making it the most common indication.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Hybrid THR in cats showed no major complications across 17 hips in 15 cats, including 2 bilateral cases.
  • Postoperative radiographs confirmed stable implant positioning with no loosening, migration, or dislocation in follow-up imaging.
  • Mean owner satisfaction was high, with a mean short-form feline musculoskeletal pain index (sf-FMPI) score of 2/36 at a mean follow-up of 438 days.
  • SCFE (slipped capital femoral epiphysis) was the most common indication, seen in 13/17 hips.
  • Partial tenotomy of rectus femoris origin resolved intraoperative medial patella luxation in 3 cases—no cats required surgical correction later.
  • A micro BFX cup allowed for increased acetabular offset, possibly reducing luxation risk even when using a +0 femoral head offset.
  • Hybrid THR was successfully used as a revision for failed CFX THR due to recurrent luxation—implants remained stable post-revision.
  • Use of oversized cups (12 mm) with shallow seating or medial breach still resulted in stable outcomes, suggesting good implant fixation even with reduced bone stock.

Lomas

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Medium‐term outcomes of hybrid total hip arthroplasty in cats: Cemented femoral stem and cementless acetabular cup in 17 hips (2020–2023)

2025-6-VS-lomas-1

Article Title: Medium‐term outcomes of hybrid total hip arthroplasty in cats: Cemented femoral stem and cementless acetabular cup in 17 hips (2020–2023)

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: Femoral Fixation
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.