Quiz Question

In Welsh 2023 et al., on TTAF fixation methods, which of the following variables did **not significantly differ** between single- and two-pin constructs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The KWIA values were not statistically different between groups (p = .13).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Kirschner wire insertion angle (KWIA).
The KWIA values were not statistically different between groups (p = .13).

🔍 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-4

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 Lederer 2025 et al., on MIPO vs ORPS, which fracture type was more common in dogs treated with MIPO?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. MIPO was used in 41% of comminuted fractures vs 16% in ORPS (p = .012).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Comminuted fractures.
MIPO was used in 41% of comminuted fractures vs 16% in ORPS (p = .012).

🔍 Key Findings

Study size: 105 dogs (73 ORPS; 32 MIPO)

MIPO vs ORPS differences:

  • Surgical time: MIPO median 130 min vs ORPS 85 min (p < .001)
  • Explant rate: MIPO 25% vs ORPS 4.1% (p = .003)
  • Time to clinical union: MIPO 85 days vs ORPS 57 days (p = .010)
  • Frontal alignment deviation: MIPO 3.5° vs ORPS 2.0° (p = .047)
  • Comminution more frequent in MIPO (41% vs 16%; p = .012)

Significant predictors for MIPO use: More proximal fracture margin (p = .004), surgeon identity (p < .001)

No significant difference: Sagittal alignment, radial length, union rate, or complication rate by surgeon

Implant preference: Fixin plates used in 84% of MIPO; locking plates more common in ORPS

Lederer

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

2025-4-VS-lederer-2

Article Title: Retrospective comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and plate stabilization of antebrachial fractures in 105 dogs (2017–2022)

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, which construct demonstrated the highest axial stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 2 (2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin) showed the greatest stiffness and yield point under axial loading.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin.
Group 2 (2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin) showed the greatest stiffness and yield point under axial loading.

🔍 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-1

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 Berger 2023 et al., on elbow COR estimation, how did the COR in FMCP elbows compare to normal elbows?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CT-based analysis showed that the COR in FMCP elbows shifted caudally compared to normal.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It was more caudal.
CT-based analysis showed that the COR in FMCP elbows shifted caudally compared to normal.

🔍 Key Findings

  • COR of elbows with FMCP was significantly more caudal compared to normal elbows, based on CT-derived geometry.
  • In normal elbows, 74% of medial and 93% of lateral axes exited cranial and distal to the epicondyles.
  • In FMCP elbows, 81% of medial and 70% of lateral axes exited caudal and distal to the epicondyles.
  • Different landmark combinations produced slightly different COR approximations, especially between humeral vs. radius/ulna-based axes.
  • The medial-lateral axis using trochlea and capitulum centers provided the most consistent COR approximation.
  • COR estimations based on diseased elbows may not match normal joint geometry, impacting implant alignment accuracy.
  • External epicondylar landmarks may be useful intraoperatively to estimate COR location, but variability limits precision.
  • Drill diameter size may buffer small COR differences, but impact in advanced disease or bilateral cases remains unclear.

Berger

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

The use of subchondral bone topography to approximate the center of rotation of the elbow joint in dogs

2023-1-VS-berger-2

Article Title: The use of subchondral bone topography to approximate the center of rotation of the elbow joint 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 Haine 2022 et al., on outcomes in canine limb tumors, what was the overall R1 rate following planned narrow excision for soft tissue sarcomas?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. STSs had a 42% R1 rate vs 26% for MCTs in the study.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 42%.
STSs had a 42% R1 rate vs 26% for MCTs in the study.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fewer R1 margins (tumor on ink) were achieved in mast cell tumors (MCTs) when using 6–10 mm lateral margins versus 0–5 mm (7% vs. 55%; _P_ = .049).
  • For soft tissue sarcomas (STSs), no benefit was seen in margin completeness between 0–5 mm vs. 6–10 mm lateral margins (41% vs. 43% R1).
  • Overall R1 rates were 26% for MCTs and 42% for STSs following PNE.
  • R scheme (“tumor on ink” = R1) had better interobserver agreement (83%) compared to ≤1 mm margin criteria (68% agreement).
  • Complication rate was moderate (26%), but no surgeries required revision.
  • Local recurrence/metastasis occurred in 14% of dogs, with 60% of those having R1 margins.
  • Adjunctive therapy was considered clinically indicated in 46% of 0–5 mm margin cases vs. 24% of 6–10 mm cases.
  • Histologic grade and tumor size were not predictive of margin completeness.

Haine

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Incomplete histological margins following planned narrow excision of canine appendicular soft tissue sarcomas and mast cell tumors, using the residual tumor classification scheme

2022-7-VS-haine-3

Article Title: Incomplete histological margins following planned narrow excision of canine appendicular soft tissue sarcomas and mast cell tumors, using the residual tumor classification scheme

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, what was the main mechanical advantage of using three cannulated screws over two?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 3 (three screws) had significantly higher yield load (586 N) compared to Group 2 (303 N)
Incorrect. The correct answer is Higher yield load.
Group 3 (three screws) had significantly higher yield load (586 N) compared to Group 2 (303 N)

🔍 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-1

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 Pfeil 2024 et al., on fluoroscopic pinning, how many cases showed pin migration?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No cases of pin migration were reported in this cohort.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.
No cases of pin migration were reported in this cohort.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning (FGNMP) was used to treat 17 animals (15 dogs and 2 cats) with 57 metabone fractures, including various fracture configurations (short-oblique body, physeal, and comminuted).
  • All 57 fractures were stabilized using intramedullary pins via FGNMP. The study exclusively focused on pin fixation and did not include screws or combined fixation techniques.
  • Median surgical time was 54 minutes (range 26–99 min), indicating efficient procedural execution.
  • Radiographic bone union was achieved in all fractures, with a median time to union of 6 weeks (range 4–12 weeks). Union was confirmed in all initially non-united fractures on follow-up.
  • No major complications were reported. A single pressure sore at the olecranon resolved uneventfully, and no pin migration or osteomyelitis was observed.
  • Pin extensions were noted radiographically (e.g., 42% distal subchondral overextension), but were not associated with clinical problems.
  • Fluoroscopic guidance improved implant accuracy and preserved soft tissue, enabling effective fracture alignment and stabilization using this minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) approach.
  • The authors concluded that FGNMP is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive method for a variety of metabone fracture types, yielding quick recovery, fast healing, and good to excellent long-term functional outcomes in all 17 cases.

Pfeil

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

2024-5-VS-pfeil-5

Article Title: Outcomes of 15 dogs and two cats with metabone fractures treated with fluoroscopically guided normograde metabone pinning

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 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, how did unilateral plating compare to orthogonal plating?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Unilateral plating showed 3.5–4.1x greater gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 3.5–4.1x higher in UP.
Unilateral plating showed 3.5–4.1x greater gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Compared unilateral plating (UP) vs orthogonal plating (OP) with 2.0, 2.4, and 3.0 mm plates (OP2.0, OP2.4, OP3.0).
  • Model: acetal homopolymer (Delrin) rod with 29 mm fixed fracture gap, loaded axially (4–196 N, 90,000 cycles).
  • OP constructs had 2.5–4.1x higher strength and 3.0–4.2x higher stiffness than UP constructs (p < .0002).
  • UP had 3.5–4.1x higher gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).
  • All OP groups exceeded 1000 N max load before failure (vs 424 N for UP).
  • Greater implant size in OP groups further increased performance.
  • All constructs survived fatigue loading; 3.5 mm plates showed deformation, especially UP; OP plates remained intact.

Welsh

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Biomechanical analysis of orthogonal and unilateral locking plate constructs in a fracture gap model

2025-4-VS-welsh-2

Article Title: Biomechanical analysis of orthogonal and unilateral locking plate constructs in a fracture gap 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 Beamon 2022 et al., on calcanean tunnel orientation, which construct demonstrated significantly higher yield load than modified tunnels?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. TT constructs showed a 25% higher yield load than MT (P = .027), indicating stronger early resistance to deformation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Transverse tunnel (TT).
TT constructs showed a 25% higher yield load than MT (P = .027), indicating stronger early resistance to deformation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No significant difference in peak load, failure load, stiffness, or 3 mm gap formation among bone tunnel types.
  • Transverse tunnel (TT) constructs had 25% higher yield load than modified tunnels (MT) (P = .027).
  • Most common failure mode was suture pull-through (67%), with no significant difference between groups.
  • Gap formation ≥3 mm occurred in ~90% of constructs; no significant difference in force needed for gap among groups.
  • All bone tunnel techniques (TT, VT, MT) are viable options for CCT reattachment in dogs.
  • The 3-loop pulley (3LP) pattern provided strong, uniform repair, with higher loads to failure than previously reported.
  • TT constructs showed more tendon distortion at the repair interface during loading.
  • Inclusion of accessory tendon may have improved repair strength compared to prior studies using GT alone.

Beamon

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Effect of calcanean bone‐tunnel orientation for teno‐osseous repair in a canine common calcanean tendon avulsion model

2022-4-VS-beamon-1

Article Title: Effect of calcanean bone‐tunnel orientation for teno‐osseous repair in a canine common calcanean tendon avulsion 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 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?

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.