Quiz Question

In Adrian 2024 et al., on feline pelvic fracture stabilization, what was the primary complication encountered postoperatively with SOP plate use?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Screw loosening was observed in 3 cats and was the most frequent implant-related issue.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Screw loosening.
Screw loosening was observed in 3 cats and was the most frequent implant-related issue.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 20 cats with pelvic fractures treated with SOP plates and cortical screws
  • Full function reported in all patients per FMPI follow-up
  • Screw loosening in 3/20 SOP cases; implant removal in 3 cats
  • Median sacral index decrease at follow-up: 5.7%; mostly mild narrowing
  • Complications: 5 major (3 SOP removals, 2 trochanter osteotomy issues); 20 minor
  • SOP plate shown feasible even in challenging configurations; good functional outcomes

Adrian

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Use of Locking Plates Fixed with Cortical Screws for Pelvic Fracture Repair in 20 Cats

2024-1-VCOT-adrian-2

Article Title: Use of Locking Plates Fixed with Cortical Screws for Pelvic Fracture Repair in 20 Cats

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 Carvajal 2025 et al., on femoral stem breakage, which patient factor was frequently present in failed cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 10 of 13 dogs were heavier than manufacturer guidelines for the implanted stem size.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Dogs exceeding weight guidelines for stem size.
10 of 13 dogs were heavier than manufacturer guidelines for the implanted stem size.

🔍 Key Findings

Incidence of BFX lateral bolt stem breakage: 2.95% (13 dogs, 14 stems)

Implant factors:

  • 13/14 were BFX lateral bolt stems (sizes #5–7)
  • +9 necks used in 5/11 of 17 mm heads
  • 10/14 stems undersized based on radiographs
  • 10/13 dogs exceeded weight limits for implanted stem size

Malalignment:

  • 10/14 had varus alignment (median 3.9°)
  • 8/14 had insufficient proximodistal seating

Breakage site: Proximolateral shoulder in all cases

Revision outcomes:

  • 11 revised (7 CFX, 3 larger BFX, 1 collared)
  • 9/10 revised dogs regained full function
  • Complications: 1 rebreakage, 1 periprosthetic fracture, 1 fixation failure

Histopathology:

  • Electron microscopy showed fatigue striations and incomplete bead fusion

Conclusion: Avoid small BFX lateral bolt stems if undersized or if long necks required; use weight guidelines to prevent fatigue failure.

Carvajal

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Breakage of cementless press‐fit femoral stems following total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 14 cases (2013–2023)

2025-3-VS-carvajal-3

Article Title: Breakage of cementless press‐fit femoral stems following total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 14 cases (2013–2023)

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 Carwardine 2024 et al., on screw placement in HIF, which placement direction was associated with a significantly higher complication rate?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 62.2% of lateral-to-medial placements developed complications, compared to only 19.4% for medial-to-lateral (p = .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Lateral to medial.
62.2% of lateral-to-medial placements developed complications, compared to only 19.4% for medial-to-lateral (p = .001).

🔍 Key Findings

  • 73 elbows (52 dogs) underwent randomized medial or lateral transcondylar screw placement for HIF.
  • Lateral-to-medial placement resulted in a significantly higher rate of complications (62.2%) vs medial-to-lateral (19.4%) (p = .001).
  • Odds ratio for complications: 6.11 (95% CI: 2.13–17.52).
  • Most common complications: seromas (n = 13), surgical site infections (n = 16).
  • Implants with lower AMI/bodyweight were significantly associated with major complications (p = .037).
  • Only 4 procedures (5%) required revision surgery (major type I complications), with no difference by screw direction.
  • NNT = 2.3 for medial placement to prevent one complication.

Carwardine

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Medial versus lateral transcondylar screw placement for canine humeral intracondylar fissures: A randomized clinical trial

2024-2-VS-carwardine-1

Article Title: Medial versus lateral transcondylar screw placement for canine humeral intracondylar fissures: A randomized clinical trial

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 Kwok 2023 et al. on BFX lateral bolt THR in dogs,what factor was most associated with postoperative femoral fractures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Increased age was significantly associated with postoperative femoral fractures (p = .01).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased age.
Increased age was significantly associated with postoperative femoral fractures (p = .01).

🔍 Key Findings

  • 97.4% of dogs returned to normal function after total hip replacement using the BFX lateral bolt.
  • Mean femoral stem subsidence was 1.22 mm, with most occurring in the first month and minimal thereafter.
  • Postoperative complication rate was 13.6%, with 9.2% major and 4.4% minor complications.
  • Femoral fractures (3.6%) and coxofemoral luxations (3.6%) were the most common major complications.
  • Increased age and higher stem size were risk factors for postoperative femoral fractures; CFI >2.0 was also associated.
  • Medial calcar fractures were avoided, and fractures occurred distal to stem ingrowth zone, simplifying repairs.
  • Three cases underwent prophylactic plating, all with excellent outcomes and no complications.
  • Explant rate was 2.6% (5/195), with most failures involving acetabular cup rather than femoral stem.

Kwok

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Clinical outcomes of canine total hip replacement utilizing a BFX lateral bolt femoral stem: 195 consecutive cases (2013–2019)

2023-1-VS-kwok-3

Article Title: Clinical outcomes of canine total hip replacement utilizing a BFX lateral bolt femoral stem: 195 consecutive cases (2013–2019)

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 Allaith 2023 et al., on THR outcomes, which of the following was most commonly reported as a major complication?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Luxation was the most commonly reported major complication in both veterinary surgeon and owner reports.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Luxation of the prosthetic joint.
Luxation was the most commonly reported major complication in both veterinary surgeon and owner reports.

🔍 Key Findings

From Allaith et al., 2023 – Outcomes from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry

  • 2375 total hip replacements were analyzed across 1852 dogs, making this the largest multiuser canine THR dataset to date.
  • Most common indications for THR were hip dysplasia (51%) and osteoarthritis (34%).
  • Implants used included Kyon (46%), BioMedtrix CFX (22%), Hybrid (11%), BFX (9%), and Helica (4.5%).
  • Veterinary-reported complication rate was 8.5%, while owner-reported was 23%, with moderate agreement (k=0.44).
  • Most common complications: Luxation, femoral fracture, and aseptic loosening.
  • BioMedtrix BFX and Helica implants had a higher risk of complications when used after femoral head and neck excision (P = .031).
  • Postoperative LOAD scores significantly improved vs preoperative (21 → 11; P < .0001), supporting improved mobility.
  • Owner satisfaction was high, with 88% rating outcome as very good or good.

Allaith

Veterinary Surgery

2

2023

Outcomes and complications reported from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry over a 10-year period

2023-2-VS-allaith-1

Article Title: Outcomes and complications reported from a multiuser canine hip replacement registry over a 10-year period

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 Peycke 2022 et al., on CBLO in immature dogs, what was the most common **complication** from improper screw placement in CBLO?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Two dogs developed valgus deformities from screws breaching the distal lateral portion of the proximal tibial physis.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Valgus deformity.
Two dogs developed valgus deformities from screws breaching the distal lateral portion of the proximal tibial physis.

🔍 Key Findings

  • CBLO was effective for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature dogs with CrCL injuries, avoiding disruption of proximal tibial growth plates.
  • Radiographic union of the osteotomy occurred in a mean of 6 weeks (range: 4–8 weeks), indicating rapid bone healing.
  • Full limb function was restored in all cases by long-term follow-up (mean 23 months), including dogs with initial complications.
  • Two dogs developed 19° valgus deformities due to screw interference with the proximal tibial physis; both were corrected surgically with return to function.
  • One dog developed 10° recurvatum due to over-rotation of the tibial plateau, but retained full function without revision.
  • CCS (countersink compression screw) caused early apophyseal closure in older dogs but had no adverse clinical effects.
  • In contrast, K-wire or plate-only fixation preserved open apophysis, suggesting implant choice may influence growth.
  • No meniscal injuries were observed, and all CrCL injuries were managed arthroscopically — 6 complete, 6 partial, 4 avulsions.

Peycke

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Center of rotation of angulation-based leveling osteotomy for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature dogs

2022-3-VS-peycke-2

Article Title: Center of rotation of angulation-based leveling osteotomy for stifle stabilization in skeletally immature 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 McKay 2023 et al., on patellar tendon augmentation, which method provided the highest construct stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The combined TBW group showed significantly higher construct stiffness compared to single-method augmentations.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Combined transpatellar and suprapatellar TBW.
The combined TBW group showed significantly higher construct stiffness compared to single-method augmentations.

2023-8-VS-mckay-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 Curuci 2024 et al., which complication occurred most commonly after DCTPLO?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Observed in 16/18 stifles postoperatively, though no clinical impact was noted:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Patellar ligament thickening.
Observed in 16/18 stifles postoperatively, though no clinical impact was noted:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 16 dogs (18 stifles) with CrCL rupture and TPA >34° were treated using the DCTPLO
  • Mean TPA correction: from 39.4° to 6.3°
  • Bone union at 60 days in 17/18 stifles; remaining healed by 90 days
  • Minor complications (e.g., small wedge gaps) in 2/18 stifles — no major complications
  • Patellar ligament thickening seen in 16/18 stifles but no clinical signs noted
  • The technique enabled safer reduction with less risk of tibial crest fracture vs. conventional TPLO

Curuci

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Double-Cut Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy for the Management of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Insufficiency in Dogs with an Excessive Plateau Angle: Early Clinical Results in 16 Dogs

2024-6-VCOT-curuci-3

Article Title: Double-Cut Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy for the Management of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Insufficiency in Dogs with an Excessive Plateau Angle: Early Clinical Results in 16 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 de la Oliva 2024 et al., what was the overall complication rate after HCF repair?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 12 complications occurred in 89 elbows: 6 minor, 6 major, yielding a 13.4% complication rate:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 13.4%.
12 complications occurred in 89 elbows: 6 minor, 6 major, yielding a 13.4% complication rate:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 89 French Bulldogs with HCF; 40.4% (36/89) had contralateral HIF
  • Prophylactic transcondylar screws placed in 20/36 HIF; no complications in these
  • Complication rate for HCF repair = 13.4% (6.7% minor, 6.7% major)
  • Most complications occurred with Kirschner wire fixation
  • Short-term outcome: Bone healing observed in all, but 14/45 had persistent intracondylar gap
  • Long-term outcomes (n=27):
    • Excellent = 66.7%
    • Good = 29.6%
    • Fair = 3.7%
  • Complication-free dogs significantly more likely to have excellent/good outcomes (p = 0.007)

Delaoliva

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

2024-3-VCOT-delaoliva-2

Article Title: Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

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 Pilot 2022 et al., on closure methods in sternotomy, what was concluded regarding closure technique choice in large dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dog size increased risk of complications, but closure method did not alter this risk.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Closure material choice does not affect risk in large dogs.
Dog size increased risk of complications, but closure method did not alter this risk.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Overall closure-related complication rate was 14.1%, lower than previously reported (17–78%).
  • No clinically meaningful difference in complication rate between orthopedic wire (17.4%) and suture (11.5%) closure methods.
  • Dog size (≥20 kg) was the only significant risk factor associated with increased closure-related complications (p = .01).
  • Type of closure (wire vs. suture) did not affect risk, even in larger dogs.
  • Suture closure showed a non-significant trend toward fewer complications (mean reduction 2.3%, 95% CI: –9.1% to +4.5%).
  • Most complications were mild (62%), with only 10 severe cases requiring surgical revision.
  • Infection rate was low (2.7%), and not significantly different between wire and suture.
  • Suture closure is a valid alternative to wire, including in large dogs, based on this large, multi-institutional study.

Pilot

Veterinary Surgery

6

2022

Comparison of median sternotomy closure‐related complication rates using orthopedic wire or suture in dogs: A multi-institutional observational treatment effect analysis

2022-6-VS-pilot-5

Article Title: Comparison of median sternotomy closure‐related complication rates using orthopedic wire or suture in dogs: A multi-institutional observational treatment effect 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?

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.