Quiz Question

In Raleigh 2022 et al., on pericardiectomy complications, which surgical tool was most frequently associated with the onset of ventricular fibrillation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In 15 of 16 dogs, electrosurgical devices were used, and VF coincided with their use in 8.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Bipolar electrosurgical device.
In 15 of 16 dogs, electrosurgical devices were used, and VF coincided with their use in 8.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurred in 3% of pericardiectomy cases across reporting institutions.
  • 14 of 16 dogs (88%) that developed intraoperative VF died, indicating high mortality.
  • Electrosurgical devices were used in 15/16 dogs; VF onset coincided with their use in 8 dogs, suggesting a potential but unproven association.
  • Preoperative arrhythmias were seen in 7 dogs (e.g., VPCs, VT, bradycardia), possibly serving as early warning signs.
  • Thoracoscopic approach was used in 75% of cases; however, conversion to open surgery was required in 9/13 thoracoscopic procedures after VF onset.
  • Defibrillation was attempted in 13 dogs, but only 3 converted to sinus rhythm, and only 2 survived postoperatively.
  • VF may result from stray current or cardiac manipulation; bipolar energy devices were implicated despite lower theoretical risk.
  • Preventative strategies include judicious electrosurgery use, close ECG monitoring, rapid CPR preparedness, and preop cardiac risk assessment.

Raleigh

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

The development of ventricular fibrillation as a complication of pericardiectomy in 16 dogs

2022-4-VS-raleigh-3

Article Title: The development of ventricular fibrillation as a complication of pericardiectomy in 16 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 Sisk 2024 et al., on intramedullary nails, what biomechanical property is most affected by increasing nail diameter?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Stiffness increases with the 4th power of diameter (∝ D⁴), greatly improving resistance to deformation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Torsional and bending stiffness.
Stiffness increases with the 4th power of diameter (∝ D⁴), greatly improving resistance to deformation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • IMN provides relative stability, resists bending/torsion due to central axis alignment
  • Larger diameter nails = exponentially greater stiffness (∝ D⁴)
  • Trade-off: Larger interlocking holes weaken fatigue strength of the nail
  • Reaming increases contact/stability but has pros/cons:
    • Improves outcomes in closed fractures
    • May reduce endosteal blood flow in thin-walled bones (e.g., cats)
  • Design advances:
    • Angle-stable IMN reduce rotational slack
    • Expandable nails simplify insertion but may compromise removal or compressive load resistance
    • Precontoured nails match bone curvature but lack consistent clinical superiority
  • Material debates continue (e.g., titanium vs. stainless steel vs. magnesium)

Sisk

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

2024-6-VCOT-sisk-1

Article Title: Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

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 Meltzer 2022 et al., on femoral implant selection, which factor most consistently predicted the use of a cemented femoral stem?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Older dogs were more likely to receive cemented stems due to decreased bone quality and increased fracture risk.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Age ≥ 7 years.
Older dogs were more likely to receive cemented stems due to decreased bone quality and increased fracture risk.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Hybrid implants were used in older, heavier dogs with lower canal flare index (CFI) compared to cementless types.
  • CFI <1.8 was associated with higher risk of femoral fracture or stem subsidence with cementless implants.
  • Total complication rate was 14%, with catastrophic complications in only 1.5%—lower than reported in other studies.
  • No significant difference in complication rates across implant types (BFX, BFX-C, hybrid).
  • Femur fractures were rare (2.9%), lower than in prior studies, and successfully managed with cerclage/plate fixation.
  • Coxofemoral luxation was the most common complication (8 cases); all occurred within 62 days post-op, mostly resolved with revision.
  • Collared BFX stems did not significantly reduce complications, though they may limit stem subsidence.
  • An implant selection algorithm was proposed, using age ≥7 years, weight ≥45 kg, and CFI <1.8 to guide cemented vs. cementless stem use.

Meltzer

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Case factors for selection of femoral component type in canine hip arthroplasty using a modular system

2022-2-VS-meltzer-1

Article Title: Case factors for selection of femoral component type in canine hip arthroplasty using a modular system

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 Deprey 2022 et al., on gap fracture implants, what was the failure mode of the LCP constructs under axial compression?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The LCP constructs failed by plate bending at the screw holes in compression testing.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Plate bending at open screw holes.
The LCP constructs failed by plate bending at the screw holes in compression 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-2

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 Trefny 2025 et al., on locking plate biomechanics, which configuration showed higher construct stiffness in compression bending?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Short working length had significantly higher stiffness than long in compression bending.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Short working length.
Short working length had significantly higher stiffness than long in compression bending.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Short working length constructs had significantly higher stiffness and lower strain than long constructs in compression bending (p = 0.0172).
  • In tension bending, short constructs also had higher precontact stiffness and lower strain, but this reversed after transcortical contact (~150 N).
  • Transcortical contact increased stiffness only in long constructs, producing a bilinear load-displacement curve.
  • Postcontact stiffness was higher in long constructs, but this may not reflect clinical benefit due to risks of high interfragmentary strain.
  • Short working length reduced strain at multiple ROIs under both loading conditions, including over fracture gap (Tables 1–3).
  • Increased working length promoted stress concentration and deformation, especially in compression bending.
  • In vitro benefits of long constructs (via contact stability) may not translate to healing, as repetitive loading could increase plate strain and bone resorption.
  • Plate strain was effectively mapped using 3D digital image correlation, confirming regional strain differences between configurations.

Trefny

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

2025-3-VCOT-trefny-1

Article Title: Effect of Plate Screw Configuration on Construct Stiffness and Plate Strain in a Synthetic Short Fragment Small Gap Fracture Model Stabilized with a 12-Hole 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

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 Muroi 2025 et al., on refracture risk, all refractures in the **plate removal group** occurred at which location?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Refractures after plate removal occurred at the same site as the original fracture, linked to decreased BMD and thickness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Same site as initial fracture.
Refractures after plate removal occurred at the same site as the original fracture, linked to decreased BMD and thickness.

🔍 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-3

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 Deprey 2022 et al., on gap fracture implants, which material was the NAS-ILN made of?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The NAS-ILN was made from titanium alloy (Ti6Al-4V ELI), offering favorable biomechanics and biocompatibility.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Titanium alloy.
The NAS-ILN was made from titanium alloy (Ti6Al-4V ELI), offering favorable biomechanics and biocompatibility.

🔍 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-4

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 Sisk 2024 et al., which IMN design improvement addresses rotational slack?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Angle-stable designs reduce mediolateral “slack” and enhance torsional stability:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Angle-stable interlocking threads.
Angle-stable designs reduce mediolateral “slack” and enhance torsional stability:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • IMN provides relative stability, resists bending/torsion due to central axis alignment
  • Larger diameter nails = exponentially greater stiffness (∝ D⁴)
  • Trade-off: Larger interlocking holes weaken fatigue strength of the nail
  • Reaming increases contact/stability but has pros/cons:
    • Improves outcomes in closed fractures
    • May reduce endosteal blood flow in thin-walled bones (e.g., cats)
  • Design advances:
    • Angle-stable IMN reduce rotational slack
    • Expandable nails simplify insertion but may compromise removal or compressive load resistance
    • Precontoured nails match bone curvature but lack consistent clinical superiority
  • Material debates continue (e.g., titanium vs. stainless steel vs. magnesium)

Sisk

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

2024-6-VCOT-sisk-4

Article Title: Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

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 Trefny 2025 et al., on plate length and stiffness, what was the measured effect of plate length on plate strain?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Strain was significantly lower for 12-hole than 6-hole plates at all ROIs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 12-hole plates had the lowest strain.
Strain was significantly lower for 12-hole than 6-hole plates at all ROIs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 12-hole LCPs (80% plate–bone ratio) showed significantly higher construct stiffness than 6-, 8-, or 10-hole plates in both compression and tension bending.
  • Strain on the plate was significantly lower in 12-hole vs 6-hole plates at all regions of interest (ROIs), especially around the fracture gap.
  • No incremental increases in stiffness or decreases in strain were observed between 6-, 8-, and 10-hole plates—only when comparing to 12-hole plates.
  • Bone model strain adjacent to the plate end was significantly lower for 10- and 12-hole plates vs 6-hole plates under both loading conditions.
  • The threshold effect suggests biomechanical benefits only emerge beyond a plate–bone ratio of ~80%.
  • Working length increased from 9.4 mm (6-hole) to 13 mm (others), potentially influencing strain/stiffness differences.
  • Four-point bending was used, as it replicates the most biomechanically relevant force on plated long bones.
  • Clinical implication: Longer plates may reduce plate strain and peri-implant bone strain, potentially lowering risk of fatigue failure or stress risers.

Trefny

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

Effect of Plate Length on Construct Stiffness and Strain in a Synthetic Short-Fragment Fracture Gap Model Stabilized with a 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

2025-2-VCOT-trefny-2

Article Title: Effect of Plate Length on Construct Stiffness and Strain in a Synthetic Short-Fragment Fracture Gap Model Stabilized with a 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

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 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Implant Selection & Configuration
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.