Quiz Question

In Forzisi 2025 et al., on femoral growth post-THR, what was the effect of THR on total femoral length?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. THR caused a 2.3% smaller increase in femoral length (p = .465), not clinically significant.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Total femoral length showed negligible change.
THR caused a 2.3% smaller increase in femoral length (p = .465), not clinically significant.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 24 dogs (<8.5 months) undergoing unilateral cementless THR.
Growth Impact:

  • Operated femurs showed ~11.5% less trochanteric growth than controls (p = .002).
  • No significant difference in femoral diaphyseal + epiphyseal length (p = .712) or femur overall (p = .465).

Cortical Width:

  • Increased significantly at 10 mm distal to trochanter (4.6% increase, p = .037) and at 50% femoral length (8.5% increase, p = .030).

Clinical relevance: Despite measurable changes, no clinically significant impairment to femoral length occurred.
Effect Sizes:

  • Moderate negative for trochanteric growth.
  • Moderate positive for proximal femoral width.

Forzisi

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Evaluation of the effects of cementless total hip replacement on femoral length in skeletally immature dogs

2025-1-VS-forzisi-2

Article Title: Evaluation of the effects of cementless total hip replacement on femoral length 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 Kokkinos 2025 et al., on THR age effects, what best describes the clinical recommendation based on the study findings?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Due to higher complication rates in young dogs, surgeons are advised to exercise caution in elective early-age THR.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Early-age THR should be approached with caution.
Due to higher complication rates in young dogs, surgeons are advised to exercise caution in elective early-age THR.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Study population: 116 dogs underwent cementless THR; grouped by age:
    • Group A: ≤6 months (n = 27)
    • Group B: >6 to ≤12 months (n = 41)
    • Group C: >12 months (n = 48)
  • Overall perioperative complication rate: 31.9% (37/116)
    • Group A: 22.2%
    • Group B: 26.8%
    • Group C: 41.7%
  • No significant difference in total complication rate by age (p = .207), though older dogs (Group C) had numerically higher rates.
  • Luxation was significantly more common in dogs >12 months:
    • Group C: 14.6% vs. Group A (0%) and Group B (2.4%) → p = .049
  • Most common complications: luxation (9.5%) and intraoperative fissure or fracture (9.5%)
  • Time under anesthesia and surgery duration were not associated with complication risk (p = .297 and p = .781)
  • No infections or aseptic loosening observed during the 8-week follow-up.

Kokkinos

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

The influence of age at total hip replacement on perioperative complications in dogs

2025-3-VS-kokkinos-5

Article Title: The influence of age at total hip replacement on perioperative complications 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 Welsh 2023 et al., on TTAF fixation methods, what was the estimated quadriceps force at a walk used as a benchmark for load testing?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 240 N was cited as the estimated quadriceps force during walking, used to benchmark construct strength.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 240 N.
240 N was cited as the estimated quadriceps force during walking, used to benchmark construct strength.

🔍 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-5

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 Chitty 2025 et al., on tibial fracture fixation in immature dogs, what was the most likely influence of increasing age on treatment selection?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Older puppies were more likely to receive internal fixation (OR 1.25 per week increase in age, p < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased use of internal fixation.
Older puppies were more likely to receive internal fixation (OR 1.25 per week increase in age, p < .001).

🔍 Key Findings

Internal fixation (IF) group (n=59):

  • Complication rate: 20.3%
  • Major complications: 15.3%
  • Longer time to discharge if complications occurred (median: 12.5 weeks)

External skeletal fixation (ESF) group (n=36):

  • Complication rate: 55.6% (p < .001 vs IF)
  • Major complications: 52.8%
  • Most common issue: pin tract morbidity

Multivariable analysis:

  • Use of IF significantly reduced odds of complications (OR 0.23, p = .004)
  • Use of post-op antibiotics associated with increased odds of complications (OR 3.53, p = .028)

Fixation choice influenced by age:

  • Older puppies more likely to receive IF (OR 1.25 per week increase in age, p < .001)

Breed & fracture distribution:

  • Common breeds: Labrador, Border Collie, Whippet
  • Common fracture sites: middle and proximal third of tibia

Chitty

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Short‐term complications of internal versus external fixation of closed diaphyseal tibial fractures in 95 skeletally immature dogs

2025-4-VS-chitty-5

Article Title: Short‐term complications of internal versus external fixation of closed diaphyseal tibial fractures in 95 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 Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what postoperative alignment difference was noted in the FRS group compared to the virtual surgical plan?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FRS use caused a small but significant increase in recurvatum (median 2.9°, *P = .03*).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased recurvatum.
FRS use caused a small but significant increase in recurvatum (median 2.9°, *P = .03*).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates based on 3D-printed femurs produced accurate femoral alignment (median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes).
  • Both fracture reduction system (FRS) and intramedullary pin (IMP) methods achieved near-anatomic alignment in cadaveric femoral fractures.
  • FRS required fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, P = .001), but longer surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, P = .011).
  • Sagittal plane alignment: FRS led to mild increased recurvatum (median 2.9°), but still within near-anatomic limits (<5°).
  • Axial alignment: Both groups achieved near-anatomic torsion (<10°), though one IMP case had acceptable (not near-anatomic) alignment.
  • Custom drill guides and FRS improved fluoroscopy efficiency but were cumbersome and time-consuming to use. Authors do not recommend current prototype for clinical use.
  • Clinical significance: 3D printed models allow accurate precontouring, reducing intra-op plate adjustment; custom guides may reduce radiation exposure for the surgical team.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D-printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs

2023-7-VS-scheuermann-3

Article Title: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D-printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric 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 Peycke 2022 et al., on CBLO in immature dogs, which structure must be **avoided during osteotomy** to preserve growth potential?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Avoiding the proximal tibial physis is key to preserving growth in skeletally immature dogs during CBLO.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Proximal tibial physis.
Avoiding the proximal tibial physis is key to preserving growth in skeletally immature dogs during CBLO.

🔍 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-1

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 Anderson 2023 et al., on French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fractures, which factor was **not significantly associated** with the presence of a contralateral HIF?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. HIF presence was not significantly more common in younger dogs (p = .129).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Younger age.
HIF presence was not significantly more common in younger dogs (p = .129).

🔍 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-5

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?

In Muroi 2025 et al., on refracture risk, what screw-to-bone diameter ratio (SBDR) is suggested as a **threshold** for increased refracture risk in growing dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. An SBDR over 0.4 may weaken bone, especially when screws become relatively large due to growth.
Incorrect. The correct answer is >0.4.
An SBDR over 0.4 may weaken bone, especially when screws become relatively large due to growth.

🔍 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-2

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 de Moya 2023 et al., on FGPP of femoral capital physeal/neck fractures, which factor was most associated with poor outcomes requiring salvage procedures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with remodeling had higher risk of implant failure and malunion.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Chronicity with radiographic remodeling.
Dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with remodeling had higher risk of implant failure and malunion.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 11 dogs, 13 fractures (mostly Salter-Harris type I) were repaired with FGPP using Kirschner wires.
  • 10/13 fractures achieved satisfactory healing with good limb function at ~43 days median follow-up.
  • Major complications occurred in 5 dogs: intra-articular pin placement, implant migration (2), implant failure with nonunion, and malunion.
  • 2 dogs presenting >15 days post-injury with radiographic remodeling were poor candidates → higher risk of nonunion/malunion.
  • Preoperative displacement was mostly mild (10/13 fractures); these had better outcomes than chronic or severely displaced cases.
  • Median surgical time: 60 minutes (range 45–75), all performed percutaneously without conversion to open.
  • Elective pin removal was performed in 5 cases; migration occurred with both short and long cut wires.
  • Femoral neck resorption (“apple-coring”) was rare (2/10 healed cases) and thought to be less frequent than after ORIF due to reduced vascular disruption.

de Moya

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

2023-7-VS-demoya-2

Article Title: Closed reduction and fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 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 Miller 2024 et al., what was the most common breed represented in the surgical cohort?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. French Bulldogs accounted for 54 of 124 dogs, making them the most common breed in the study.
Incorrect. The correct answer is French Bulldog.
French Bulldogs accounted for 54 of 124 dogs, making them the most common breed in the study.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Sample: 124 dogs (64 S, 60 FFP); French Bulldogs most common (54/124)
  • Pre-op clinical signs: Exercise intolerance (34/124), stertor (22), regurgitation (7), vomiting (12)
  • Operative time (no concurrent procedure): Longer in FFP (75 vs 51 min, p = .02)
  • Anesthetic time: Longer in FFP (111 vs 80 min, p = .02)
  • Anesthetic complications: Similar rates (FFP 50, S 49; p = .30)
  • Post-op regurgitation: 27/124 (S: 17, FFP: 10; p = .18)
  • Post-op aspiration pneumonia: Rare (S: 4, FFP: 5)
  • Major complications: Rare (5/124); 2 dogs euthanized post-op (1 per group)
  • Revision surgery: Needed in 7/124 (3 S, 4 FFP)

Miller

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Complications and outcome following staphylectomy and folded flap palatoplasty in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

2024-1-VS-miller-1

Article Title: Complications and outcome following staphylectomy and folded flap palatoplasty in dogs with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

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: Pediatrics & Growth Plate Considerations
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.