Quiz Question

In Fitzpatrick 2024 et al., on ESF for pelvic fractures in cats, what was reported regarding the need for revision surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No revision surgeries (e.g., hip replacement or FHO) were required in this series.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No cases required revision surgery.
No revision surgeries (e.g., hip replacement or FHO) were required in this series.

🔍 Key Findings

  • External skeletal fixation (ESF) was successfully applied to a variety of pelvic fracture types in cats, including sacroiliac luxations and ilial body fractures.
  • All fractures achieved radiographic union within 9 weeks, even in comminuted or complex configurations.
  • No intraoperative or long-term complications were reported during the study period.
  • Implant loosening was observed radiographically in 13% of cases, with 8% of pins found to be loose at frame removal.
  • ESF enabled indirect fracture reduction using components as handles, with a limited open approach minimizing soft tissue disruption.
  • No iatrogenic neurological deficits were observed, supporting safe pin placement near neurovascular structures, although some cats presented with pre-existing neurologic signs.
  • No cases required revision surgery, and all cats underwent stabilization solely with ESF as per study inclusion criteria.
  • Postoperative hospitalization ranged from 2 to 5 days, though no comparison to other fixation types was evaluated.

Fitzpatrick

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures in cats

2024-7-VS-fitzpatrick-5

Article Title: External skeletal fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures in 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 Nicolas 2024 et al., what surgical technique was used to decompress the foramen at T1–2?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The foramen was decompressed using a minimally invasive mini-hemilaminectomy while preserving articular facets:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Mini-hemilaminectomy.
The foramen was decompressed using a minimally invasive mini-hemilaminectomy while preserving articular facets:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • The lateral approach via scapular osteotomy allowed safe access to the T1-2 foramen in a French Bulldog with foraminal disc extrusion.
  • A mini-hemilaminectomy was performed, preserving articular facets.
  • The dog had no neurologic deficits postoperatively, returned to ambulation within 24 hours, and was discharged in 3 days.
  • At 10 months, CT confirmed excellent scapular healing and no recurrence.
  • Double 2.4-mm locking plates provided stable fixation across the scapular spine.
  • The technique avoided thoracic entry or dorsal spine dissection, suggesting a less invasive alternative for select T1-2 foraminal cases.

Nicolas

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

2024-2-VCOT-nicolas-5

Article Title: Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, what complication was observed in some short screw cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Three cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS) had caudal screws impinging the ventral sacral foramina.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ventral sacral foraminal impingement.
Three cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS) had caudal screws impinging the ventral sacral foramina.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two short screws (SLS or SPS) provided >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness vs a single long screw (LLS) for SI joint stabilization.
  • No mechanical advantage was seen between the two short screw types (lag vs positional).
  • All short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding spinal impingement.
  • Ventral sacral foraminal impingement occurred in 3 short-screw cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS), all involving the caudal screw.
  • LLS group showed more abaxial displacement at osteotomy sites, suggesting inferior stabilization for concurrent pelvic fractures.
  • Short screw constructs had longer total screw length (48 mm) than LLS (40 mm), contributing to increased stiffness.
  • Positioning of caudal screw in a cranial/craniodorsal trajectory may help avoid nerve foraminal injury.
  • No significant difference in displacement at peak load among groups; stiffness and load capacity were the primary benefits.

Hanlon

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

2022-7-VS-hanlon-4

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

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 Kang 2024 et al., on sacroiliac fixation strength, what was the primary failure mode for the double 2.3-mm HCS group?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Failure was typically within the sacral bone; no screw head pullout noted in HCS group
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cancellous bone failure in sacrum.
Failure was typically within the sacral bone; no screw head pullout noted in HCS group

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 20 cats with pelvic fractures treated using locking plates with only cortical screws
  • 28 fractures stabilized (ilium: 17, acetabulum: 6, ischium: 3, pubis: 2)
  • Implants: Primarily 1.5/2.0 mm LCPs or String-of-Pearls plates
  • Major complications in 2/20 cases (10%): sciatic entrapment, malunion requiring THA
  • Minor complications in 2/20 cases (10%): plate impingement, transient lameness
  • Clinical union in all cats by 8 weeks; all cats returned to full function
  • Authors conclude cortical screws alone can provide adequate fixation in feline pelvic fractures if screw purchase and bone quality are sufficient

Kang

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Biomechanical Comparison of Double 2.3-mm Headless Cannulated Self-Compression Screws and Single 3.5-mm Cortical Screw in Lag Fashion in a Canine Sacroiliac Luxation Model

2024-1-VCOT-kang-2

Article Title: Biomechanical Comparison of Double 2.3-mm Headless Cannulated Self-Compression Screws and Single 3.5-mm Cortical Screw in Lag Fashion in a Canine Sacroiliac Luxation Model

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 Woelfel 2022 et al., on cervical locked facets, which best describes the neurologic pattern often observed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Half the tetraparetic dogs had greater thoracic than pelvic limb deficits, consistent with central cord-like syndrome.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Thoracic limbs more affected than pelvic limbs.
Half the tetraparetic dogs had greater thoracic than pelvic limb deficits, consistent with central cord-like syndrome.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Locked facet injuries in dogs involved unilateral dorsal displacement of the cranial articular process of the caudal vertebra, most commonly at C5/6 or C6/7.
  • All affected dogs were small/toy breeds, typically following trauma (most often attacks by larger dogs).
  • Neurologic severity ranged from ambulatory tetraparesis to tetraplegia, often with thoracic limb deficits more severe than pelvic limbs — suggesting a central cord syndrome-like pattern.
  • CT and MRI revealed axial rotation, subluxation, and articular process displacement; MRI showed T2 hyperintensity, nerve root impingement, and soft tissue changes.
  • Surgical treatment included ventral fixation with screws, pins, and PMMA, and one case required dorsal facetectomy for reduction.
  • Medical management, including external coaptation or rest, also resulted in functional recovery in select cases.
  • All dogs with follow-up data (8/8) had functional recovery, with nonambulatory dogs regaining ambulation in a median of 4 weeks.
  • No consistent differences in outcome were observed between surgical and nonsurgical management, suggesting locked facets may be biomechanically stable.

Woelfel

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries in dogs

2022-1-VS-woelfel-4

Article Title: Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries 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 Papacella-Beugger 2024 et al., on neuronavigation, what percentage of screws were deemed appropriately placed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 85% (17/20) of screws were well-positioned using spinal neuronavigation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 85%.
85% (17/20) of screws were well-positioned using spinal neuronavigation:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Cadaveric study using 3 miniature breed dogs (6 hemipelves) to assess spinal neuronavigation accuracy for lumbar plate fixation
  • 20 screws placed using CBCT-based navigation with real-time tracking
  • 85% (17/20) of screws were safely and accurately placed
  • Median deviation of screw entry points from plan: 1.8 mm
  • All 3 misplaced screws occurred in a single cadaver, attributed to inexperienced drill handling
  • Custom 3D-printed lightweight tracking array was necessary due to small spinous processes in miniature dogs
  • No iatrogenic canal perforations or vertebral damage in any specimen
  • Concludes neuronavigation offers precise, safe placement of spinal implants in small dogs, with minimal anatomic disruption

Papacella

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Spinal Neuronavigation for Lumbar Plate Fixation in Miniature Breed Dogs

2024-6-VCOT-papacella-beugger-1

Article Title: Spinal Neuronavigation for Lumbar Plate Fixation in Miniature Breed 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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, what was the impact of implant positioning (neutral vs valgus) on biomechanical performance?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Positioning did not significantly influence mechanical outcomes in this ex vivo model.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant effect.
Positioning did not significantly influence mechanical outcomes in this ex vivo model.

🔍 Key Findings

  • In an ex vivo study of 20 canine femur pairs, implantation of a novel hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) prosthesis reduced maximum load (ML) by 22% and load at collapse (LC) by 27% vs. intact controls (p ≤ 0.05).
  • Displacement at maximum load (DML), displacement at collapse (DC), and stiffness (k) were not significantly different between prosthesis and control groups.
  • Both groups showed similar failure patterns, with 92% failing at the femoral neck.
  • All prosthetic femurs still withstood ~6.2× body weight — exceeding estimated in vivo peak loads (~1.64× BW).
  • Prosthesis positioning (neutral vs valgus) had no significant effect on biomechanical outcomes.
  • Implant design preserved more metaphyseal bone stock than total hip replacement, possibly explaining the smaller load reduction compared to other short-stem prostheses.
  • The press-fit cobalt–chromium design with conical stem allowed full contact and stress distribution over the femoral head/neck.
  • Authors conclude the device has adequate immediate biomechanical strength for clinical use, though long-term in vivo studies are needed.

Perez Neto

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Femoral Implant for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

2025-4-VCOT-perezneto-5

Article Title: Biomechanical Evaluation of a Femoral Implant for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

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 Woelfel 2022 et al., on cervical locked facets, what was the most common inciting cause?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 9 out of 10 cases were due to external trauma from dog attacks.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Attacks by larger dogs.
9 out of 10 cases were due to external trauma from dog attacks.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Locked facet injuries in dogs involved unilateral dorsal displacement of the cranial articular process of the caudal vertebra, most commonly at C5/6 or C6/7.
  • All affected dogs were small/toy breeds, typically following trauma (most often attacks by larger dogs).
  • Neurologic severity ranged from ambulatory tetraparesis to tetraplegia, often with thoracic limb deficits more severe than pelvic limbs — suggesting a central cord syndrome-like pattern.
  • CT and MRI revealed axial rotation, subluxation, and articular process displacement; MRI showed T2 hyperintensity, nerve root impingement, and soft tissue changes.
  • Surgical treatment included ventral fixation with screws, pins, and PMMA, and one case required dorsal facetectomy for reduction.
  • Medical management, including external coaptation or rest, also resulted in functional recovery in select cases.
  • All dogs with follow-up data (8/8) had functional recovery, with nonambulatory dogs regaining ambulation in a median of 4 weeks.
  • No consistent differences in outcome were observed between surgical and nonsurgical management, suggesting locked facets may be biomechanically stable.

Woelfel

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries in dogs

2022-1-VS-woelfel-3

Article Title: Subaxial cervical articular process subluxation and dislocation: Cervical locked facet injuries 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 Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was considered an acceptable placement grade using the modified Zdichavsky classification?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Grades I and IIa were deemed acceptable; grades IIb, IIIa, and IIIb were unacceptable.
Incorrect. The correct answer is I and IIa.
Grades I and IIa were deemed acceptable; grades IIb, IIIa, and IIIb were unacceptable.

🔍 Key Findings:

  • Sample: 24 canine cadavers, 477 total pins across 240 vertebrae.
  • Technique Comparison: 3D printed guides (3DPG) vs freehand (FH).
  • Acceptable Placement Rates: 3DPG = 87.5%, FH = 69.8% (p < .0001).
  • Odds Ratio for FH: 0.28 (95% CI 0.16–0.47), significantly less likely to yield acceptable placement.
  • Worst Accuracy Locations: T10 (OR 0.10), T11 (OR 0.35).
  • Surgeon Impact: Surgeon 2 outperformed others (OR 9.61, p = .001).
  • Modified Zdichavsky Classification used to score implant accuracy (Grades I–IIIb).
  • Primary Benefit of 3DPG: Increased safety and precision, regardless of surgeon experience.

Guevara

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

2024-2-VS-guevara-4

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

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 Dalton 2023 et al., In Minimally invasive acetabular fracture repair in dogs, what was the clinical outcome of the Chihuahua case treated with minimally invasive acetabular repair?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The clinical case achieved rapid functional recovery and bone union, despite one screw fracture without consequence.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Weight-bearing within 24 hours and radiographic union at 3 months.
The clinical case achieved rapid functional recovery and bone union, despite one screw fracture without consequence.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Feasibility study in 5 canine cadavers plus 1 clinical case (Chihuahua, 5.5 kg).
  • Technique used two small approaches (caudal and craniolateral) connected with an epiperiosteal tunnel.
  • Plates were precontoured on mirrored 3D-printed hemipelves to improve fit and reduce intraoperative bending.
  • Cadaver outcomes: fracture gap <2 mm, step defect <1 mm, pelvic angulation <5°.
  • Sciatic nerve injury was minimal: 1/5 cadavers had a mild indentation; others had no gross injury.
  • Median total surgical time: ~46 minutes in cadavers; incisions ~5 cm.
  • Clinical Chihuahua case: weight-bearing within 24 hrs, radiographic union at 3 months; one screw fractured but no adverse effect.
  • Authors conclude: MIAF with 3D printing is feasible and accurate, but requires further evaluation before routine use.

Dalton

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

2023-7-VS-dalton-5

Article Title: Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures in dogs: Ex vivo feasibility study and case report

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: Pelvic & Spinal Surgery
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.