Quiz Question

In Jourdain 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic fixation of feline SIL, what percentage of screws had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 14 of 17 screw placements (82%) had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body, a threshold for biomechanical stability.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 82%.
14 of 17 screw placements (82%) had ≥60% purchase within the sacral body, a threshold for biomechanical stability.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Minimally invasive fluoroscopic technique yielded median reduction of 94.1% immediately postoperative.
  • Screw purchase ≥60% in sacral body achieved in 82% of cases, with median purchase of 73.3%.
  • One screw exited caudally; no dorsal, ventral, or cranial exits reported.
  • At 7-week follow-up, reduction and purchase slightly declined but remained effective (p = .008 and p = .013).
  • No screw loosening observed, even in suboptimal reductions or purchases.
  • Pelvic canal width and symmetry (PCDR and HCWR) were restored and maintained.
  • Excellent long-term function: FMPI ≥0.98 in 9 of 10 cats; owners reported 10/10 satisfaction.
  • Fluoroscopy enabled accurate screw placement and minimized tissue trauma, contributing to rapid recovery.

Jourdain

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Fluoroscopically-assisted closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of sacroiliac luxations in cats using 2.4 mm headless cannulated compression screws: Description, evaluation and clinical outcome

2024-4-VS-jourdain-2

Article Title: Fluoroscopically-assisted closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of sacroiliac luxations in cats using 2.4 mm headless cannulated compression screws: Description, evaluation and clinical outcome

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 Marshall 2022 et al., on fracture healing in dogs, how did **radius and ulna fractures in toy breeds** perform regarding delayed or non-union?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found no increased odds of poor healing in toy breed radius/ulna fractures.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Were no more likely to result in delayed or non-union.
The study found no increased odds of poor healing in toy breed radius/ulna fractures.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Delayed union occurred in 13.9% of fractures; non-union in 4.6%; mal-union in 0.7%
  • Major implant failure increased odds of delayed or non-union by 12.9×
  • Surgical site infection increased risk 3.2×; bone grafting (any type) was also associated (OR 3.3)
  • Comminuted fractures had 4.2× greater odds of delayed or non-union
  • Older age increased risk, with odds increasing by 21% per year
  • Radius and ulna fractures in toy breeds were not high risk, contrary to historical belief
  • Most non-unions required revision surgery with rhBMP-2 or autograft to achieve union
  • Ilium fractures showed 0% delayed/non-union — possibly due to robust muscle envelope

Marshall

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Delayed union, non-union and mal-union in 442 dogs

2022-7-VS-marshall-2

Article Title: Delayed union, non-union and mal-union in 442 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 Caldeira 2025 et al., on femoral neck fixation, how did displacement values compare among groups?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. There was no statistically significant difference in displacement between the groups
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant difference among groups.
There was no statistically significant difference in displacement between the groups

🔍 Key Findings

Design: In vitro study on cadaveric femurs (n=21) with basilar femoral neck fractures stabilized using 2 vs 3 titanium cannulated screws.

Stiffness: Control > 3-screw > 2-screw (674 > 120 > 90 N/mm).

Yield Load: 3-screw (586 N) > 2-screw (303 N); both < intact femur (2692 N).

Displacement: No difference across groups.

Complication: 3-screw technique more demanding; higher risk of cortical perforation, especially with narrow femoral necks.

Failure Mode: Dislodgement of femoral head + screw shaft bending.

Conclusion: 3 screws = stronger construct than 2 screws. Clinical implications need further study.

Caldeira

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2025

In Vitro Biomechanical Study of Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation with Two or Three Cannulated Screws in Dogs

2025-1-VC-Caldeira-5

Article Title: In Vitro Biomechanical Study of Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation with Two or Three Cannulated Screws in Dogs

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 Pfund 2025 et al., on femoral cortical thickness, what was the mean CTI for dogs that developed perioperative fractures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The mean CTI in dogs with fissures/fractures was 0.246 vs 0.285 in all dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.246.
The mean CTI in dogs with fissures/fractures was 0.246 vs 0.285 in all dogs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Lower CTI values were significantly associated with higher risk of both intraoperative and postoperative femoral fractures or fissures (p <.0001).
  • The mean CTI for all dogs was 0.285, whereas dogs with fissures/fractures had a mean CTI of 0.246.
  • For each 0.001 increase in CTI, odds of fissure/fracture decreased by 2–3% depending on perioperative timing.
  • High interobserver reliability (ICC = 0.984) and consistency between pre- and postoperative CTI measurements (ICC = 0.96).
  • CTI was the only significant risk factor identified; age, breed, bodyweight, BCS, CFI, or luxoid hips were not significant.
  • Prophylactic lateral plating in dogs with low CTI (mean 0.230) resulted in no postoperative fractures.
  • Postoperative fractures occurred in 8% of cases, and 93% of dogs returned to full function within one year.
  • CTI may be a useful radiographic screening tool, especially when advanced imaging (e.g., DEXA) is unavailable.

Pfund

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Femoral cortical thickness index in a population of dogs undergoing total hip replacement

2025-6-VS-pfund-5

Article Title: Femoral cortical thickness index in a population of dogs undergoing total hip replacement

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 Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, how did the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin construct perform compared to others?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 1 had significantly inferior yield point and failure load versus groups 2 and 3.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Lowest stiffness and axial force.
Group 1 had significantly inferior yield point and failure load versus groups 2 and 3.

🔍 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-4

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 Muroi 2025 et al., on refracture risk, what factor was significantly associated with refracture in dogs **retaining plates**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In the non-removal group, greater positional change of the distal screw (OR 1.79, p=0.04) was linked to refracture.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Amount of position change of the most distal screw.
In the non-removal group, greater positional change of the distal screw (OR 1.79, p=0.04) was linked to refracture.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Refracture occurred in 5.5% of limbs, with higher incidence in the plate removal group (12.5%) vs. non-removal (3.5%).
  • In the non-plate removal group, refractures occurred at the most distal screw site, linked to greater screw position change during growth (OR 1.79, p=0.04).
  • Screw-to-bone diameter ratio (SBDR) >0.4 was a significant risk factor for refracture in the plate retention group.
  • In the plate removal group, refractures occurred at the original fracture site, associated with lower pixel value ratio (bone mineral density) and reduced radial thickness.
  • Implant-induced osteoporosis (IIO) beneath the plate likely contributed to refracture risk after plate removal.
  • Younger age at fracture (<6 months) was associated with higher refracture risk due to ongoing radial growth and shifting screw position.
  • No significant association was found between refracture and plate type (locking vs conventional), fixation method, or ulnar union.
  • Recommendations include careful SBDR sizing, motion restriction, and cautious plate removal decisions in growing dogs.

Muroi

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

A Retrospective Study of Risk Factors Associated with Refracture after Repair of Radial–Ulnar Fractures in Small-Breed Dogs

2025-2-VCOT-muroi-1

Article Title: A Retrospective Study of Risk Factors Associated with Refracture after Repair of Radial–Ulnar Fractures in Small-Breed 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 Carrera 2024 et al., on early MPL correction, which deformity was most frequently associated with grade III patellar luxation in juvenile dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. This combination was the most common deformity pattern in grade III cases:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Femoral varus with external tibial torsion.
This combination was the most common deformity pattern in grade III cases:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 5 juvenile dogs (mean age 7.2 months) with grade III–IV MPL were treated surgically.
  • Most had femoral varus + external tibial torsion; some had shallow trochlear grooves.
  • Distal femoral osteotomy was performed in 4/5 dogs; Tibial tuberosity transposition (TTT) in 3/5; Sulcoplasty in 2/5.
  • Mean time to weight bearing: 9.8 ± 5.5 days; healing: 55 ± 24 days
  • No reluxations, and final radiographic values for aLDFA and torsion were maintained at 1 year.
  • One complication due to domestic trauma, not surgical failure.
  • Early surgery appeared to preserve alignment and prevent deformity progression.

Carrera

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Early Surgical Management of Medial Patellar Luxation in Juvenile Dogs

2024-2-VCOT-carrera-1

Article Title: Early Surgical Management of Medial Patellar Luxation in Juvenile Dogs

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 Deprey 2022 et al., on gap fracture implants, which construct demonstrated higher torque to failure during torsional testing?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The NAS-ILN resisted significantly more torque before failure than the LCP construct in torsional testing.
Incorrect. The correct answer is NAS-ILN construct.
The NAS-ILN resisted significantly more torque before failure than the LCP construct in torsional testing.

🔍 Key Findings

  • NAS-ILN had significantly greater stiffness in both axial compression and 4-point bending compared to LCP constructs.
  • Ultimate load to failure was significantly higher for NAS-ILN in compression (804 N vs 328 N) and bending (25.7 Nm vs 16.3 Nm).
  • Torsional stiffness and angular deformation were similar, but NAS-ILN resisted higher torque to failure than LCP (22.5 Nm vs 19.1 Nm).
  • No slack was observed with the NAS-ILN construct, unlike older nail designs.
  • Failure modes differed: LCPs failed via plate bending; NAS-ILNs failed at the implant or bone near screw holes.
  • Titanium alloy and curved design of NAS-ILN provides better anatomic fit and more uniform stress distribution.
  • A third, perpendicular locking hole in NAS-ILN may enhance torsional stability but was not utilized in this study.
  • The curved, angle-stable design of NAS-ILN is a novel advancement in veterinary orthopedics.

Deprey

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Mechanical evaluation of a novel angle‐stable interlocking nail in a gap fracture model

2022-8-VS-deprey-3

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of a novel angle‐stable interlocking nail in a gap fracture model

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 Whyte 2025 et al., on cannulated screw fixation, what factor was significantly associated with an increased risk of screw breakage?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Heavier dogs (>20 kg) had a statistically significant association with screw breakage.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Body weight over 20 kg.
Heavier dogs (>20 kg) had a statistically significant association with screw breakage.

🔍 Key Findings

Study focus: Outcomes of cannulated screw fixation in unicondylar humeral condylar fractures (UHCF) in dogs.
Clinical union rate: 89%
Overall complication rate: 36%

  • Major complication: Most common was screw breakage

Significant risk factor for screw breakage:

  • Body weight >20 kg (statistically significant)

Breed distribution:

  • Spaniels, especially English Springer Spaniels, were most common

No mention of plate augmentation as standard in this cohort

Whyte

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Use of cannulated screws in the treatment of unicondylar humeral condylar fractures in dogs

2025-2-VS-whyte-4

Article Title: Use of cannulated screws in the treatment of unicondylar humeral condylar fractures 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 Welsh 2023 et al., on TTAF fixation methods, which failure mode was **most common** in both groups during mechanical testing?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 82% of failures were due to pin bending and pullout in both fixation groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Pin bending and pullout.
82% of failures were due to pin bending and pullout in both fixation groups.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two-pin fixation had significantly greater strength (639 N) than single-pin fixation (426 N) in TTAF models (p = .003).
  • Stiffness was also higher with two-pin constructs (72 N/mm vs 57 N/mm); statistically significant (p = .029).
  • Both fixation types withstood loads greater than quadriceps force in dogs at a walk (240 N), indicating clinical viability.
  • Failure was most commonly due to pin bending or pullout (82%), with fewer cases of ligament tearing or epiphyseal fracture.
  • K-wire insertion angle (KWIA) did not significantly differ between fixation types (p = .13).
  • Single larger pins delivered ~68% of the strength and ~83% of the stiffness of two smaller vertically aligned pins.
  • Clinical implication: Two vertically aligned pins are biomechanically superior for TTAF fixation in canine models.
  • Study used mature cadavers, which may underestimate loads and stiffness compared to immature clinical cases.

Welsh

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion fracture model

2023-5-VS-welsh-2

Article Title: Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion fracture model

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: Fracture Management
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.