Quiz Question

In Mullins 2023 et al., on thoracolumbar pin placement, what was a key **limitation** of the FHP technique noted in the study?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FHP required training and anatomical familiarity, which impacted intraoperative deviation rates.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Steep learning curve and operator experience dependency.
FHP required training and anatomical familiarity, which impacted intraoperative deviation rates.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both free-hand probing (FHP) and 3D-printed guides (3DPG) enabled accurate spinal pin placement, with 87.5% vs 96.4% of pins graded as optimal (Grade I).
  • 3DPGs had fewer intraoperative deviations (0/56 pins) compared to 6/56 with the FHP technique.
  • No pins using either method fully breached the medial vertebral canal (Grade IIb) — a critical safety outcome.
  • Pins placed using 3DPGs required less time overall (mean 2.6 min) than FHP (mean 4.5 min).
  • FHP required specific experience and has a learning curve, whereas 3DPG use requires CAD software and 3D printing access.
  • FHP had more lateral canal violations (Grade IIIa: 4/56 vs 0/56 for 3DPG), suggesting slightly less precision.
  • Both techniques were safe, and all deviations were recognized and corrected intraoperatively.
  • 3DPGs may offer practical advantages in clinical settings lacking surgical expertise, while FHP allows immediate intervention without 3D printing delay.

Mullins

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Accuracy of pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine using a free-hand probing technique versus 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides: An ex-vivo study

2023-5-VS-mullins-4

Article Title: Accuracy of pin placement in the canine thoracolumbar spine using a free-hand probing technique versus 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides: An ex-vivo study

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 Lomas 2025 et al., on hybrid THR in cats, what technique was used intraoperatively to correct medial patellar luxation seen after implant reduction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. This technique resolved intraoperative patellar luxation in 3 cats and has not been previously reported.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Partial tenotomy of rectus femoris origin.
This technique resolved intraoperative patellar luxation in 3 cats and has not been previously reported.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Hybrid THR in cats showed no major complications across 17 hips in 15 cats, including 2 bilateral cases.
  • Postoperative radiographs confirmed stable implant positioning with no loosening, migration, or dislocation in follow-up imaging.
  • Mean owner satisfaction was high, with a mean short-form feline musculoskeletal pain index (sf-FMPI) score of 2/36 at a mean follow-up of 438 days.
  • SCFE (slipped capital femoral epiphysis) was the most common indication, seen in 13/17 hips.
  • Partial tenotomy of rectus femoris origin resolved intraoperative medial patella luxation in 3 cases—no cats required surgical correction later.
  • A micro BFX cup allowed for increased acetabular offset, possibly reducing luxation risk even when using a +0 femoral head offset.
  • Hybrid THR was successfully used as a revision for failed CFX THR due to recurrent luxation—implants remained stable post-revision.
  • Use of oversized cups (12 mm) with shallow seating or medial breach still resulted in stable outcomes, suggesting good implant fixation even with reduced bone stock.

Lomas

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Medium‐term outcomes of hybrid total hip arthroplasty in cats: Cemented femoral stem and cementless acetabular cup in 17 hips (2020–2023)

2025-6-VS-lomas-2

Article Title: Medium‐term outcomes of hybrid total hip arthroplasty in cats: Cemented femoral stem and cementless acetabular cup in 17 hips (2020–2023)

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 Thibault 2023 et al., on DPO for THR luxation, what was the most common long-term outcome observed after performing DPO to manage craniodorsal luxation in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 7 of 11 dogs required implant removal due to complications, making explantation the most common long-term outcome.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Explantation due to aseptic loosening or infection.
7 of 11 dogs required implant removal due to complications, making explantation the most common long-term outcome.

2023-8-VS-thibault-1

Article Title:

Journal:

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 Perry 2025 et al., on I-Loc fracture fixation, which complication rate was observed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The reported complication rates were low, with major complications in 5.3% and minor in 9.1% of cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Major 5.3%, minor 9.1%.
The reported complication rates were low, with major complications in 5.3% and minor in 9.1% of cases.

🔍 Key Findings

  • High union rate with low complications was achieved using the I-Loc angle-stable interlocking nail across 243 canine long-bone fractures.
  • Mean time to clinical union was 8.3 weeks, faster than many historical plate-rod or non-angle-stable nail reports.
  • Major complications occurred in only 5.3% and minor complications in 9.1% of cases.
  • Most fractures were diaphyseal (75%) and comminuted (62%), demonstrating effectiveness in complex fracture patterns.
  • Ancillary implants were uncommon (21%), mainly used in epi-/metaphyseal fractures or for anatomic reconstruction.
  • Postoperative missed bolt rate was very low (0.94%), reflecting improved targeting accuracy.
  • Open fractures carried a substantially higher risk of SSI and implant removal compared with closed fractures.
  • Prebending of tibial nails was strongly recommended to follow natural recurvatum and avoid iatrogenic alignment errors.

Perry

Veterinary Surgery

8

2025

Outcomes of 243 dogs with traumatic fractures treated with the I-Loc interlocking nail

2025-8-vs-perry-2

Article Title: Outcomes of 243 dogs with traumatic fractures treated with the I-Loc interlocking nail

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, why may it be challenging to match COR in diseased elbows with the normal contralateral joint?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FMCP causes caudal displacement of COR and landmark changes, complicating surgical alignment.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Because FMCP alters bone landmarks and geometry.
FMCP causes caudal displacement of COR and landmark changes, complicating surgical alignment.

🔍 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-4

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 Zweig 2025 et al., on healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures, which complication was observed only in non-surgically managed dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Two dogs in the non-surgical group developed grade III/IV medial patellar luxation; none occurred after surgery.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Medial patellar luxation.
Two dogs in the non-surgical group developed grade III/IV medial patellar luxation; none occurred after surgery.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Surgically managed TTAF resulted in excellent clinical outcomes at skeletal maturity, with all dogs having normal limb function and no stifle instability.
  • Surgical treatment significantly altered proximal tibial morphology, including decreased tibial plateau angle (TPA) and increased patellar position (PP) compared with the contralateral limb.
  • Axial tibial tuberosity position (TTP-A) increased and transverse position (TTP-T) decreased in surgically treated stifles, indicating distal and caudal tuberosity migration.
  • Non-surgically managed TTAF did not significantly alter tibial morphology or PP, but outcomes were more variable.
  • Medial patellar luxation developed in 2/6 non-surgically treated dogs, whereas none occurred in surgically managed cases.
  • Pins-only and pin–tension band constructs produced similar radiographic changes and outcomes.
  • Despite morphologic changes, no dogs developed cruciate ligament instability at follow-up.
  • Non-surgical management yielded good to excellent owner-reported outcomes, but carried a potential increased risk of patellar luxation.

Zweig

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

6

2025

Treatment outcome and radiographic appearance of healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures in skeletally mature dogs: 21 cases (2016–2023)

2025-6-vcot-zweig-3

Article Title: Treatment outcome and radiographic appearance of healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures in skeletally mature dogs: 21 cases (2016–2023)

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 Mcclean 2026 et al., on stifle arthrocentesis techniques, which approach produced the highest rate of iatrogenic articular cartilage injury?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The INFRA approach caused IACI in 6 of 8 limbs (75%), the highest rate among all techniques evaluated.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Infrapatellar (INFRA) technique.
The INFRA approach caused IACI in 6 of 8 limbs (75%), the highest rate among all techniques evaluated.

🔍 Key Findings

  • All four arthrocentesis techniques achieved 100% intra-articular accuracy, confirming that each landmark-guided method could successfully access the canine stifle joint.
  • Lateral intercondylar notch (LINC) was the most commonly used technique clinically, reported by 87.5% (35/40) of surveyed surgeons.
  • INFRA and SUPRA required significantly more needle repositions (median 3 and 2) compared with LINC and POUCH (median 1) (p = .001).
  • No iatrogenic articular cartilage injury (IACI) occurred with LINC or SUPRA techniques, suggesting favorable safety profiles.
  • INFRA produced the highest IACI rate (75%), with 6/8 limbs affected, indicating substantial risk with this approach.
  • More than half of INFRA injuries exceeded 10 mm² and involved weight-bearing cartilage, raising concern for clinically significant joint damage.
  • POUCH technique caused IACI in 37.5% of cases, but injuries occurred exclusively on non-weight-bearing cartilage.
  • SUPRA (suprapatellar) approach demonstrated accuracy with zero cartilage injury, making it a promising safer alternative for stifle arthrocentesis pending clinical validation.

Mcclean

Veterinary Surgery

2

2026

Accuracy and safety of stifle arthrocentesis and injection based on two established and two new landmarks: Ex vivo study in dogs

2026-2-vs-mcclean-3

Article Title: Accuracy and safety of stifle arthrocentesis and injection based on two established and two new landmarks: Ex vivo study 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 Knell 2026 et al., on feline stifle luxation, which complication was most commonly associated with failure to reconstruct the caudal cruciate ligament?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Three of four cases of postoperative caudal subluxation occurred when the CdCrL was not reconstructed initially.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Caudal tibial subluxation.
Three of four cases of postoperative caudal subluxation occurred when the CdCrL was not reconstructed initially.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Coaptationless multiligament reconstruction restored stifle stability in all 23 cats, allowing immediate postoperative weight bearing without external immobilization.
  • Successful outcome was achieved in 22/23 cats (95.7%), with only one case requiring arthrodesis after recurrent instability.
  • Reconstruction of the caudal cruciate ligament (CdCrL) proved critical, as 3 of 4 caudal subluxation complications occurred when the CdCrL was not reconstructed initially.
  • Major complications occurred in 26.6% (6/23) and consisted primarily of caudal tibial subluxation (4 cases) and medial patellar luxation (2 cases).
  • Revision surgery successfully restored function in most complications, with stable joints and excellent FMPI scores after revision.
  • Excellent functional outcomes were reported, with FMPI scores ranging from 0.95–1.0 at 6 months and lameness absent in nearly all cats.
  • Early mobilization without postoperative immobilization preserved range of motion, with minimal osteoarthritis progression observed over 6 months.
  • Internal brace principles using TightRope constructs, knotless anchors, and UHMWPE sutures provided strong multiplanar stabilization, supporting immediate limb use and favorable clinical outcomes.

Knell

Veterinary Surgery

4

2026

A multiligament, internal brace, coaptationless stifle reconstruction technique for feline stifle luxation

2026-4-vs-knell-2

Article Title: A multiligament, internal brace, coaptationless stifle reconstruction technique for feline stifle luxation

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 Husi 2023 et al., on TPLO vs TPLO-IB biomechanics, which test revealed significantly greater cranial tibial translation after TPLO compared to intact stifles?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cranial tibial translation was ~6× higher in TPLO stifles vs intact during both eTPT and iTPT, but not during TCT.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Both eTPT and iTPT.
Cranial tibial translation was ~6× higher in TPLO stifles vs intact during both eTPT and iTPT, but not during TCT.

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPLO alone failed to neutralize rotational instability under tibial pivot compression (TPT), despite a negative TCT.
  • TPLO combined with lateral augmentation (TPLO-IB) restored both craniocaudal and rotational stability to near-intact levels.
  • Cranial tibial translation was 6× greater after TPLO vs intact stifles when tested with TPT (p < .001).
  • No significant difference in cranial tibial translation or internal rotation between intact stifles and TPLO-IB group during TCT, eTPT, or iTPT.
  • TPLO-IB did not overconstrain the stifle, avoiding excessive external rotation.
  • External tibial rotation (eTPT) was more sensitive than TCT in detecting persistent instability after TPLO.
  • Excellent intraobserver reliability for both eTPT and iTPT (ICC > 0.9).
  • Study supports intraoperative use of TPT to identify cases needing additional rotational stabilization.

Husi

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical study

2023-5-VS-husi-2

Article Title: Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical study

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 2024 et al., how was the caudal malpositioning of the TPLO plate hypothesized to contribute to nerve injury?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Drilling caudally positioned plates risks striking the fibular nerve directly:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Directed drill trajectory toward fibular nerve.
Drilling caudally positioned plates risks striking the fibular nerve directly:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 3 dogs developed permanent fibular nerve dysfunction following TPLO
  • Common findings:
    • Drill hole or screw in caudal tibial cortex just distal to osteotomy
    • Caudal malpositioning of TPLO plate (esp. right limb of case 3)
    • Post-op signs: cranial tibial atrophy, knuckling, exaggerated gait, no hock flexion
  • One case had confirmed deep/superficial fibular neuropathy via electrodiagnostics
  • Recommended prevention: avoid overly caudal drill paths; careful gait assessment at follow-up is key

Anderson

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Permanent Iatrogenic Fibular Nerve Injury following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy

2024-3-VCOT-anderson-4

Article Title: Permanent Iatrogenic Fibular Nerve Injury following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy

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: Orthopedic Complications
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.