Quiz Question

In Trefny 2025 et al., on plate length and stiffness, what plate–bone ratio was required before significant stiffness and strain differences became apparent?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Biomechanical differences only became significant at the 80% plate–bone ratio (12-hole plate).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 80%.
Biomechanical differences only became significant at the 80% plate–bone ratio (12-hole plate).

🔍 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-5

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 Buote 2023 et al., on laparoscopic gastrectomy in cats, which staple type was ultimately used for live feline surgeries?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Purple Tri-Staple technology staples were used in live cats for graduated compression appropriate for stomach thickness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Purple Tri-Staple cartridges.
Purple Tri-Staple technology staples were used in live cats for graduated compression appropriate for stomach thickness.

🔍 Key Findings

  • LVSG was feasible in 9/10 feline cadavers with successful stapled gastrectomy and minimal technical complications.
  • Stenosis at the incisura angularis occurred in 2/10 cadavers, associated with staple placement too close to the lesser curvature.
  • Leak testing was negative in 8 cadavers and both live cats, indicating effective staple sealing.
  • Mean stomach resection was ~28%, though less than human standards (~75–80%) for metabolic effects.
  • Surgery was performed safely in two live feline subjects, with no intraoperative or postoperative complications over a 6-month follow-up.
  • Technique refinements included orogastric tube placement and custom 3D-printed cannulas to improve staple line accuracy and avoid stenosis.
  • Tri-Staple purple cartridges provided graduated compression suited for feline gastric tissue thickness (~2.5 mm).
  • No need for staple line oversew in live cats; staple-only closure proved safe in this short-term study.

Buote

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in felines: A cadaveric feasibility study and experimental case series in two cats

2023-6-buote2-4

Article Title: Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in felines: A cadaveric feasibility study and experimental case series in two 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 Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what mechanical outcome was observed across **all test constructs**, regardless of tee presence?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All constructs failed by plastic deformation, with no screw or substitute bone failures.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Plastic deformation of plate.
All constructs failed by plastic deformation, with no screw or substitute bone failures.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bending tees significantly increased mediolateral bending stiffness, but not craniocaudal stiffness, in plate-bone constructs.
  • Mean mediolateral stiffness was 43.2 N/mm with tees vs. 41.1 N/mm without (p = 0.0042), though the absolute difference was small.
  • No significant differences were found in craniocaudal bending stiffness between constructs with or without tees (p = 0.89).
  • Plastic deformation occurred in all constructs; no screw pull-out or implant breakage was observed.
  • SOP nodes may resist compressive but not tensile deformation, suggesting variable mechanical contributions depending on loading direction.
  • Craniocaudal bending had greater stiffness than mediolateral due to higher area moment of inertia along the node diameter.
  • Clinical relevance of added stiffness from tees remains unclear, warranting further in vivo and cyclic testing.
  • This was the first study to directly test SOP constructs with/without tees over a fracture gap in multiple planes.

Lu

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model

2025-2-VCOT-lu-3

Article Title: Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model

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 Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, what was the failure load for the OP2.0 construct?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The OP2.0 construct failed at 1068 ± 62 N compared to 424 N in UP constructs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1068 N.
The OP2.0 construct failed at 1068 ± 62 N compared to 424 N in UP constructs.

🔍 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-3

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 David 2024 et al., on single-port cryptorchidectomy, why was a 6 mmHg capnoperitoneum preferred?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 6 mmHg was found sufficient for caudal visualization without compromising space.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It maintained adequate workspace with minimal pressure.
6 mmHg was found sufficient for caudal visualization without compromising space.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Single-port laparoscopic-assisted cryptorchidectomy (SP-LAC) was feasible in 13/14 dogs with abdominal cryptorchidism.
  • Median surgical time was 17 min for unilateral and 27 min for bilateral cryptorchidectomy.
  • All testes were successfully exteriorized through a 15-mm mini-celiotomy in most dogs; only 2 needed slight enlargement.
  • One major complication occurred (testicular artery hemorrhage, requiring conversion to open surgery).
  • Two minor complications involved trocar-related issues (splenic capsule laceration, capnoretroperitoneum).
  • No incisional complications were reported postoperatively; some dogs had mild dermatitis at the clipped site.
  • The technique requires only one surgeon and no advanced tools beyond a single-port endoscope.
  • Low-pressure capnoperitoneum (6 mmHg) was adequate for visualization in most cases.

David

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Single-port laparoscopic-assisted abdominal cryptorchidectomy in 14 dogs

2024-3-VS-david-5

Article Title: Single-port laparoscopic-assisted abdominal cryptorchidectomy in 14 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 Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, what intramedullary pin diameter was associated with the highest biomechanical performance?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1.6 mm (50% fill).
Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.

🔍 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-3

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 Miller 2024 et al., on SOP-LC mechanical testing, which configuration improved initial torsional stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Alternating clamps significantly improved torsional stiffness despite lower bending strength.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Alternating clamp placement.
Alternating clamps significantly improved torsional stiffness despite lower bending strength.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • No significant difference in mechanical properties between contoured vs non-contoured SOP-LC rods
  • Clamp configuration significantly influenced mechanical performance:
    • Single-side clamps → ↑ yield load, ↑ displacement, ↑ bending strength (p < 0.05)
    • Alternating-side clamps → ↑ initial torsional stiffness (p = 0.029)
  • Clamp slippage was evident only in torsional tests; screw loosening may be torque-dependent
  • Mild screw bending and construct offset suggest subtle instability
  • Recommends clamp configuration choice based on loading scenario
  • Suggests 3.0 Nm torque may be more effective than 2.5 Nm to prevent clamp slippage

Miller

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Mechanical Testing of Sliding on Pivot-Locking Clamp (SOP-LC) Fracture Repair System in Four-Point Bending and Torsion

2024-4-VCOT-miller-3

Article Title: Mechanical Testing of Sliding on Pivot-Locking Clamp (SOP-LC) Fracture Repair System in Four-Point Bending and Torsion

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 Folk 2025 et al., on vessel sealing device reuse, how many devices failed intraoperatively due to malfunction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only one device failed intraoperatively, and this occurred during its first activation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1 of 16.
Only one device failed intraoperatively, and this occurred during its first activation.

🔍 Key Findings

40 dogs underwent splenectomy using 16 bipolar vessel sealing devices (VSDs)
Devices were reused up to 4 times after handwashing and ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization
Biologic debris was found in 100% of devices, specifically under the transection blade, even after a single use

  • Mostly scant (14/16) or mild (2/16) debris

No devices or debris yielded positive aerobic culture after EtO sterilization
EtO sterilization proved microbiologically effective despite visible residue
Perioperative failure rate: 1 device (malfunctioned during first activation)

Folk

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Incidence of residual biologic debris and contamination of reused bipolar vessel sealing devices after ethylene oxide sterilization following splenectomy

2025-3-VS-folk-5

Article Title: Incidence of residual biologic debris and contamination of reused bipolar vessel sealing devices after ethylene oxide sterilization following splenectomy

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 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 Raleigh 2022 et al., on pericardiectomy complications, which strategy is recommended to minimize VF risk when using electrosurgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Minimizing power settings and short application duration reduces stray current risk.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Use lowest power setting with brief applications.
Minimizing power settings and short application duration reduces stray current risk.

🔍 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-5

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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Material Science & Engineering Concepts
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.