Quiz Question

In Moreira 2024 et al., what TPA was targeted across all models?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study used 5° as the standard target for postoperative TPA in all wedge plans.
Incorrect. The correct answer is .
The study used 5° as the standard target for postoperative TPA in all wedge plans.

2024-1-VS-moreira-3

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what revision approach was used in all cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In all 9 dogs, cups were revised to larger-diameter BFX cups for new osseointegration.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cup replacement using a larger press-fit cup.
In all 9 dogs, cups were revised to larger-diameter BFX cups for new osseointegration.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Scott

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs

2025-3-VS-scott-3

Article Title: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine 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 Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, which of the following was a limitation of the universal guide?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The universal guide struggled with fit in small dogs due to its one-size design.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Single-size design may not suit all dogs.
The universal guide struggled with fit in small dogs due to its one-size design.

🔍 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-4

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 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 Husi 2023 et al., on TPLO vs TPLO-IB biomechanics, how did the TPLO-IB construct affect rotational stability compared to TPLO alone?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. TPLO-IB reduced internal tibial rotation to levels similar to intact stifles without inducing external overconstraint.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Restored rotational motion to pre-CCLD levels.
TPLO-IB reduced internal tibial rotation to levels similar to intact stifles without inducing external overconstraint.

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPLO alone failed to neutralize rotational instability under tibial pivot compression (TPT), despite a negative TCT.
  • TPLO combined with lateral augmentation (TPLO-IB) restored both craniocaudal and rotational stability to near-intact levels.
  • Cranial tibial translation was 6× greater after TPLO vs intact stifles when tested with TPT (p < .001).
  • No significant difference in cranial tibial translation or internal rotation between intact stifles and TPLO-IB group during TCT, eTPT, or iTPT.
  • TPLO-IB did not overconstrain the stifle, avoiding excessive external rotation.
  • External tibial rotation (eTPT) was more sensitive than TCT in detecting persistent instability after TPLO.
  • Excellent intraobserver reliability for both eTPT and iTPT (ICC > 0.9).
  • Study supports intraoperative use of TPT to identify cases needing additional rotational stabilization.

Husi

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical study

2023-5-VS-husi-3

Article Title: Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical study

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 Nagahiro 2023 et al., on quadriceps-femoral mismatch, what was the reference value for normal QML/FL derived from healthy beagles?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The reference QML/FL was 0.87–1.00 based on healthy beagle data. Values below 0.87 were considered abnormal.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.87–1.00.
The reference QML/FL was 0.87–1.00 based on healthy beagle data. Values below 0.87 were considered abnormal.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Quadriceps muscle length/femoral length ratio (QML/FL) was significantly lower in dogs with grade IV MPL than grades I–III (p ≤ .002).
  • Shortened QML was associated with increased femoral torsion angle (FTA) and increased aLDFA, indicating correlation with femoral deformity.
  • QML/FL increased with age, possibly due to muscular development or reduced deformity in older dogs (p = .004).
  • Grade IV MPL dogs had QML/FL < 0.87, the lower normal limit based on healthy beagles, suggesting clinically significant muscle shortening.
  • PLL/PL ratio (used to diagnose patella alta) was not associated with QML/FL or MPL severity in small breeds.
  • QML/FL can help preoperatively identify candidates for femoral shortening ostectomy, improving femoropatellar alignment.
  • Multivariate regression model confirmed QML/FL is independently influenced by age, FTA, and aLDFA (R² = 0.45).
  • CT-based 3D measurements enabled objective, noninvasive quantification of femoral and muscle alignment parameters.

Nagahiro

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

Evaluation of the quadriceps muscle length to femoral length ratio in small breed dogs with medial patellar luxation

2023-4-VS-nagahiro-5

Article Title: Evaluation of the quadriceps muscle length to femoral length ratio in small breed dogs with medial patellar luxation

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 Alvarez 2024 et al., which quadrant had significantly reduced compression when only Kern forceps were used?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Kern forceps alone produced compression mostly in the craniomedial quadrant, reducing caudal compression:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Caudo­lateral.
Kern forceps alone produced compression mostly in the craniomedial quadrant, reducing caudal compression:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 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).

Alvarez

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-2

Article Title: In Vitro Assessment of Compression Patterns Using Different Methods to Achieve Interfragmentary Compression during Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics 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 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 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?

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.