Quiz Question

In Nicolas 2024 et al., what spinal level was targeted using the lateral scapular osteotomy approach?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The novel lateral approach was used for a foraminal disc extrusion at T1–T2:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is T1–T2.
The novel lateral approach was used for a foraminal disc extrusion at T1–T2:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 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-1

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 Papacella-Beugger 2024 et al., which anatomical limitation required a custom reference array?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Human trackers were too large for miniature dogs; a 3D-printed lightweight array was used instead:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Small spinous processes in miniature breeds.
Human trackers were too large for miniature dogs; a 3D-printed lightweight array was used instead:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 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-5

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 Nicolas 2024 et al., what postoperative outcome was observed at 1 month?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The dog showed only a slight forelimb lameness, with no pain or neurologic deficit:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Slight thoracic limb lameness.
The dog showed only a slight forelimb lameness, with no pain or neurologic deficit:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 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-2

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 Deveci 2025 et al., on 3D drill guides, how many screws breached the sacral canal contents?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. None of the 20 screws breached the canal contents, despite 19 breaching the canal wall (≤ grade 2).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.
None of the 20 screws breached the canal contents, despite 19 breaching the canal wall (≤ grade 2).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Objective: Evaluate feasibility and accuracy of 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides for iliosacral screw placement in cadaver dogs.
  • N = 10 canine cadavers (20 hemipelves); screw placement done using fluoroscopic-assisted patient-specific guides (PSG).
  • Median cortical breach grade: 0 (IQR 0–1) for all screws.
    19/20 screws breached sacral canal wall (all ≤ grade 2), but no screws breached canal contents (grade 3).
  • Median trajectory deviation: 0.88° transverse, 0.72° dorsal.
  • Procedure time: Median 7.2 minutes for guide placement and drilling.
  • Conclusions: PSG-assisted screw placement was safe, accurate, and fast, offering clinical potential in pelvic trauma.

Deveci

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Evaluation of 3D‐printed patient‐specific guides to facilitate fluoroscopic‐assisted iliosacral screw placement in dogs

2025-2-VS-deveci-2

Article Title: Evaluation of 3D‐printed patient‐specific guides to facilitate fluoroscopic‐assisted iliosacral screw placement 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 Becker 2026 et al., on lumbar spine PLC biomechanics, how did the second PLC compare biomechanically to the first in terms of passive range of motion increase?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Both the first and second PLCs significantly increased ROM, but the second did not have a greater effect than the first.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It caused a similar magnitude of increase.
Both the first and second PLCs significantly increased ROM, but the second did not have a greater effect than the first.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Each PLC significantly increased passive range of motion (ROM) in the sagittal and dorsal planes (p < .05).
  • No significant change was observed in rotational ROM after either PLC.
  • First PLC increased sagittal ROM by 2.4° (23% increase); second PLC added 1.0° (8% increase).
  • Dorsal ROM increased by 2.3° after first PLC and 1.5° after second PLC.
  • Second PLC did not cause greater destabilization than the first — both contributed similarly to ROM increase.
  • Failure testing showed that spinal segments with two PLCs failed at 13 Nm, while native spines withstood up to 25 Nm, suggesting reduced load-bearing capacity but not clinically significant under normal conditions.
  • Rotational stability was preserved, possibly due to intact facet joints and lamina, which play a larger role in rotation.
  • Study supports the clinical feasibility of two consecutive PLCs, but cautions against excessive bone removal due to potential for spinal instability.

Becker

Veterinary Surgery

1

2026

Influence of two consecutive partial lateral corpectomies on passive motion of the canine lumbar spine

2026-1-VS-becker-2

Article Title: Influence of two consecutive partial lateral corpectomies on passive motion of the canine lumbar spine

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what revision approach was used in all cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. In all 9 dogs, cups were revised to larger-diameter BFX cups for new osseointegration.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cup replacement using a larger press-fit cup.
In all 9 dogs, cups were revised to larger-diameter BFX cups for new osseointegration.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 9 dogs underwent revision of osteointegrated acetabular cups after total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Revision Indications:

  • 7 luxations (5 ventral, 2 craniodorsal)
  • 1 femoral stem fracture
  • 1 aseptic stem loosening

Implants:

  • 8 BFX cups, 1 Helica; all revised to BFX
  • 7/9 required a larger cup than original

Cup removal: Required sectioning with a high-speed burr and modular osteotome; removal fragments extracted

Complications:

  • 1 recurrent luxation
  • 1 low-grade infection with possible metallic debris-associated osteolysis
  • 2 femoral fissures managed intraoperatively

Outcomes:

  • Good to excellent function in 6/6 dogs available at median 621 days
  • Minimal complications with success in re-osteointegration of new cup

Clinical takeaway: Revision of stable, ingrown cups is feasible and offers an alternative to pelvic osteotomies; typically requires upsizing

Scott

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine dogs

2025-3-VS-scott-3

Article Title: Revision of osteointegrated acetabular cup prostheses in nine 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 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 Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the observed rate of sciatic nerve injury in cadaveric repairs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only one cadaver had mild sciatic nerve injury; others had no injury on gross dissection.
Incorrect. The correct answer is One mild case out of five.
Only one cadaver had mild sciatic nerve injury; others had no injury on gross dissection.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Minimally invasive repair of acetabular fractures using precontoured plates on 3D-printed models is feasible and technically reproducible in dogs.
  • All cadavers had fracture gaps <2 mm and step defects <1 mm, indicating accurate reduction.
  • Sciatic nerve injury was minimal or absent in all cases, supporting potential neuroprotection from indirect approaches.
  • Pelvic angulation was maintained <5°, confirming preservation of alignment post-reduction.
  • Surgical time averaged ~46 minutes in cadavers for both approaches and repair.
  • Clinical case showed good radiographic healing by 8 weeks and full union by 3 months, with early weight-bearing post-op.
  • Use of locking screws improved reduction fidelity, particularly across a broad plate span.
  • 3D printing accelerated surgical planning, though its necessity remains debated due to the availability and cost concerns.

Dalton

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

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

2023-6-VS-dalton-1-35052

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?

In Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, implantation of the prosthesis reduced maximum load by approximately what percentage compared to controls?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Maximum load was 22% lower in prosthetic femurs versus intact controls.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 22%.
Maximum load was 22% lower in prosthetic femurs versus intact controls.

🔍 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-1

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 Violini 2024 et al., on 3D-guided spinal stabilization in brachycephalic dogs, which of the following best describes the utility of 3D-printed drill guides?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 3D-PSGs enabled accurate pedicle screw placement in small deformed vertebrae of brachycephalic dogs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Enabled screw placement in deformed vertebrae.
3D-PSGs enabled accurate pedicle screw placement in small deformed vertebrae of brachycephalic dogs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Spinal stabilization with 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides (3D-PSGs) was safe, with no immediate perioperative complications reported.
  • 84% of pedicle screws were optimally placed, and only 0.5% breached the spinal canal, reflecting high placement accuracy.
  • 80% of dogs experienced no neurologic deterioration postoperatively, indicating reliable short-term safety.
  • 3D-PSGs were accurate and reproducible, even across multiple institutions and surgeons.
  • Mid-term outcomes were favorable: all dogs were ambulatory, and 90% had static or improved neurologic signs.
  • 7 of 10 mid-term follow-ups showed abnormal gait, though owners rated lifestyle ≥3/5, suggesting acceptable function.
  • 3D-printed guides enabled precise pedicle screw placement in deformed vertebrae, expanding options in small breeds.
  • One dog suffered a T4 spinous process fracture due to overextension of PMMA cement, emphasizing the need for cement placement caution.

Violini

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

2024-4-VS-violini-5

Article Title: Clinical outcomes of 20 brachycephalic dogs with thoracolumbar spinal deformities causing neurological signs treated with spinal stabilization using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides

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.