Quiz Question

In Scheuermann 2024 et al., on 3D-printed reduction guides for tibial fractures, what percentage of fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 13/15 fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction; the rest were acceptable.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 87%.
13/15 fractures achieved near-anatomic reduction; the rest were acceptable.

🔍 Key Findings

  • The study was a prospective clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed, patient-specific reduction system for aligning diaphyseal tibial fractures stabilized using minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in fifteen client-owned dogs.
  • Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and fabrication were feasible within a clinically relevant timeframe, with a mean of 50.7 hours. Surgical efficiency improved with experience.
  • Pin-guide placement was accurate, with median translational discrepancies of 2.7 mm (proximal) and 2.9 mm (distal), and angular discrepancies highest in the axial plane.
  • The proximal guide was easier to apply (median Likert score: 8) than the distal guide (median: 6).
  • The 3D-printed system enabled near-anatomic reduction in 87% of cases and acceptable reduction in the remaining 13%; no unacceptable reductions occurred.
  • Postoperative alignment and tibial length were well-restored, with all dogs within 5° or 5 mm of contralateral measurements.
  • Temporary circular fixation was occasionally used to assist reduction and improve alignment.
  • Precontoured plates fit easily, with a median Likert score of 9; total surgical time was shorter than conventional MIPO at the institution.
  • The study lacked a control group but builds on prior cadaveric feasibility work.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

6

2024

Efficacy of virtual surgical planning and a three‐dimensional‐printed surgical guide for canine segmental mandibular reconstruction in a cadaver model

2024-6-VS-scheuermann1-2

Article Title: Efficacy of virtual surgical planning and a three‐dimensional‐printed surgical guide for canine segmental mandibular reconstruction in a cadaver 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 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?

In Whitney 2022 et al., on CBLO fixation strength, regarding biomechanical testing of CBLO constructs, what was the main mode of failure in constructs using only a plate and pin?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Plate-only constructs failed by tuberosity displacement followed by fracture at the most cranial screw.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Displacement of tibial tuberosity then fracture at cranial screw.
Plate-only constructs failed by tuberosity displacement followed by fracture at the most cranial screw.

🔍 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

Whitney

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of four Center of Rotation Angulation Based Leveling Osteotomy fixation methods

2022-1-VS-whitney-2

Article Title: Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of four Center of Rotation Angulation Based Leveling Osteotomy fixation methods

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 Jourdain 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic fixation of feline SIL, what was the median postoperative reduction immediately after surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The median sacroiliac reduction immediately after surgery was 94.1%, with 11 of 17 procedures achieving ≥90%.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 94.1%.
The median sacroiliac reduction immediately after surgery was 94.1%, with 11 of 17 procedures achieving ≥90%.

🔍 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-1

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 Lopez Barroso 2026 et al., on sacroiliac screw accuracy, what was the reported mean percentage of sacroiliac joint reduction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study reported a mean sacroiliac joint reduction of 94.25%, which is considered clinically optimal to minimize screw loosening.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 94.25%.
The study reported a mean sacroiliac joint reduction of 94.25%, which is considered clinically optimal to minimize screw loosening.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Mean SI joint reduction was 94.25%, exceeding the 90% target considered important to reduce screw loosening
  • Mean sacral width purchase was 82.52%, with all screws achieving >60%—a threshold for reducing implant loosening risk
  • All 20 screws were accurately placed within the sacral body, confirmed via CT or radiographs
  • A 3D-printed drill guide and table-bound system facilitated consistent screw placement via minimally invasive technique
  • Craniocaudal and dorsoventral angles were well controlled (mean CCA = –1.22°, DVA = 0.71°), demonstrating accurate trajectory
  • No intraoperative complications were reported; all pilot holes drilled on first attempt
  • Use of fluoroscopy and orthogonal imaging enhanced surgical accuracy and reduced malposition risk
  • The system permitted screw placement through a sleeve that doubled as a muscle retractor, allowing implant delivery without disruption

Lopez Barroso

Veterinary Surgery

1

2026

Accuracy of a table‐bound reduction and drill guide system for minimally invasive sacroiliac screw placement in cats

2026-1-vs-lopezbarroso-1

Article Title: Accuracy of a table‐bound reduction and drill guide system for minimally invasive sacroiliac screw placement in cats

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 Story 2024 et al., on eTPA osteotomy comparison, which technique resulted in the **greatest mechanical axis shift**?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group A (CBLO + CCWO) caused the largest change in mechanical cranial distal tibial angle (mCrDTA), indicating the most mechanical axis shift.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CBLO + CCWO.
Group A (CBLO + CCWO) caused the largest change in mechanical cranial distal tibial angle (mCrDTA), indicating the most mechanical axis shift.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Population: 16 dogs (27 tibias), TPA >34°
  • Techniques analyzed:
    • Group A: CBLO + CCWO
    • Group B: TPLO + CCWO
    • Group C: mCCWO
    • Group D: PTNWO
  • Outcomes:
    • All groups achieved post-correction TPA < 14°.
    • Group A: Slight over-correction (mean TPA 10.47°); greatest mechanical axis shift.
    • Group B: Tibial shortening (~0.58%); least mechanical axis shift.
    • Group C: Lowest post-correction TPA (mean 4.76°); under-correction.
    • Group D: High accuracy, minimal shortening (mean 7.09° post).
  • Statistical Significance:
    • Significant differences in tibial length change and mCrDTA (mechanical axis shift) between groups (p <.05).
    • TPA correction accuracy: Group A (1.02), B (0.95), C (0.89), D (0.98).

Story

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

2024-1-VS-story-1

Article Title: Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

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 Turner 2025 et al., on TPA changes after SH-1/2 fracture repair, which factor was NOT significantly associated with greater TPA reduction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Tension band usage did not lead to significantly more TPA reduction than K-wires alone (p = 0.539).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Use of tension band.
Tension band usage did not lead to significantly more TPA reduction than K-wires alone (p = 0.539).

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPA decreased significantly from preoperative to follow-up (mean 5.89°; p < 0.001), and from immediate postoperative to follow-up (mean 2.2°; p = 0.018)
  • Use of tension band in addition to K-wires did not significantly improve TPA reduction compared to K-wires alone
  • Cranial K-wire positioning may attenuate growth at the cranial tibial physis, allowing relative caudal growth to reduce TPA over time
  • Dynamic TPA reduction may reduce risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture even when initial TPA is high
  • Small breeds (e.g., French Bulldogs) were overrepresented; further research is needed in larger breeds with more growth potential
  • Surgical reduction is difficult, but perfect alignment may not be essential if TPA reduces postoperatively
  • Radiographic TPA measurement was reliably performed with low interobserver variability
  • K-wire removal at 3–8 weeks may facilitate continued growth in growing dogs

Turner

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

5

2025

Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures in Dogs

2025-5-VCOT-turner-2

Article Title: Tibial Plateau Angle Changes following Repair of Salter–Harris Type 1 and 2 Fractures 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 Anderson 2023 et al., on French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fractures, what percentage of French Bulldogs had a humeral intracondylar fissure (HIF) in the contralateral limb when CT was performed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. HIFs were found in 58.1% of dogs with available contralateral CT data.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 58%.
HIFs were found in 58.1% of dogs with available contralateral CT data.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Lateral humeral condylar fractures (LHCF) were most common, comprising 63.6% of cases.
  • Transcondylar screw (TCS) + K-wire(s) fixation had a 7.62x higher risk of major complications compared to other methods (p = .009).
  • All cases of TCS migration occurred in the TCS + K-wire group; none occurred with plate fixation.
  • Overall complication rate was 40.9%, with 29.5% being major and requiring intervention.
  • Contralateral humeral intracondylar fissures (HIF) were found in 58.1% of French Bulldogs with CT data.
  • No significant association between age and presence of HIF, but fissure length increased with age (R = 0.47, p = .048).
  • Younger, lighter dogs had higher complication and screw migration rates, possibly due to softer bone and smaller condyles.
  • TCS + plate fixation had the lowest complication rate, suggesting biomechanical superiority.

Anderson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

2023-1-VS-anderson-4

Article Title: Humeral condylar fractures and fissures in the French bulldog

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, which group demonstrated the highest construct stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The intact bones (Group 1) had the highest stiffness (674 N/mm), significantly higher than both fixation groups
Incorrect. The correct answer is Control (no osteotomy).
The intact bones (Group 1) had the highest stiffness (674 N/mm), significantly higher than both fixation 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-2

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?

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.