Quiz Question

In Dalton 2023 et al., on acetabular fracture repair, what was the maximum fracture gap observed postoperatively in the cadaver study?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All fracture repairs in cadavers showed <2 mm gaps, meeting the target accuracy of reduction.
Incorrect. The correct answer is <2 mm.
All fracture repairs in cadavers showed <2 mm gaps, meeting the target accuracy of reduction.

🔍 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-3

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 Rigo 2026 et al., on feline pedicle screws, what surgical advantage is proposed when using pedicle screws with dorsal PMMA application in cats?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The authors note that dorsal cement application can incorporate screw heads bilaterally and may be technically easier than lateral cement placement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It allows cement placement dorsally incorporating bilateral screw heads.
The authors note that dorsal cement application can incorporate screw heads bilaterally and may be technically easier than lateral cement placement.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Pedicle screw placement in feline thoracolumbar vertebrae using patient-specific 3D-printed drill guides was highly accurate, with a mean deviation from planned trajectory of 0.61° ± 0.72.
  • Overall pedicle containment rate was 93% (grade 0), with only 5.5% minor breaches (<0.5 mm) and 1.5% moderate breaches (0.5–1 mm).
  • Thoracic vertebrae demonstrated perfect safety (48/48 grade 0), whereas all breaches occurred in the lumbar vertebrae (p = 0.02).
  • All pedicle breaches were lateral, and no medial breaches or spinal canal violations occurred in the study.
  • Accuracy did not differ between breeds (Maine Coon vs mixed-breed) or sides (left vs right), suggesting consistent guide performance across anatomical variations.
  • 3D-printed drill guides allowed minimal surgical exposure, requiring access only to the dorsal lamina rather than lateral vertebral surfaces.
  • Pedicle screw constructs may facilitate dorsal PMMA application, enabling easier cement placement and bilateral incorporation of screw heads.
  • A clinical proof-of-concept case (T12 fracture) treated with pedicle screws and dorsal PMMA stabilization showed accurate implant placement without perioperative complications.

Rigo

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2026

Feasibility and Accuracy of Pedicle Screws in the Feline Thoracolumbar Spine

2026-2-vcot-rigo-5

Article Title: Feasibility and Accuracy of Pedicle Screws in the Feline Thoracolumbar Spine

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 Scortea 2025 et al., on sacroiliac fixation accuracy, what was the most common direction of screw deviation for both techniques?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Most angular and positional deviations occurred ventrally, risking ventral cortical breach.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ventral.
Most angular and positional deviations occurred ventrally, risking ventral cortical breach.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed drill guide technique (3D-DGT) resulted in fewer suboptimal screw placements than minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIO) (7.14% vs 42.85%), though not statistically significant.
  • Entry point translation (EPT) in the dorsoventral direction was significantly lower with 3D-DGT compared with MIO (p = .009).
  • Maximum angular screw deviation (MASD) did not differ significantly between 3D-DGT and MIO in dorsal or transverse planes.
  • Ventral cortical breach was the most common error with both techniques, more frequent with MIO.
  • Achievement of >60% sacral bone purchase was more consistent with 3D-DGT (92.9%) than with MIO (64.3%).
  • Modified Gras grade distribution was similar between techniques, with most screws graded as secure (“a” or “b”).
  • 3D-DGT required substantially longer preoperative planning time than MIO (median 34 vs 8.5 minutes).
  • Both techniques demonstrated overall acceptable accuracy, emphasizing the importance of CT-based planning and assessment.

Scortea

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

6

2025

Comparative analysis of 3D-printed drill guides and minimally invasive osteosynthesis in feline sacroiliac luxation: A cadaveric study

2025-6-vcot-scortea-3

Article Title: Comparative analysis of 3D-printed drill guides and minimally invasive osteosynthesis in feline sacroiliac luxation: A cadaveric 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 Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, what was the authors' primary conclusion regarding treatment selection?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The authors reported similar clinical outcomes but less subsidence and better evidence of fusion with cage + PSRF.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Both techniques were viable, but cage plus PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion.
The authors reported similar clinical outcomes but less subsidence and better evidence of fusion with cage + PSRF.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Long-term functional outcome was similar between treatments, with complete recovery in 63.6% of stand-alone cage dogs and 64.7% of cage + PSRF dogs.
  • Minor complications were substantially more common with stand-alone cages (10/11 dogs) than with cage + PSRF (6/17 dogs).
  • Major complications occurred in both groups, including cage migration, implant failure, relapse of clinical signs, and euthanasia.
  • Cage subsidence was more frequent with stand-alone cages (75%) than cage + PSRF (33%).
  • Fusion through the intervertebral cage was observed more consistently with PSRF, occurring in 4/4 CT-evaluated dogs versus 1/4 stand-alone cage dogs.
  • Histologic assessment confirmed successful bone bridging and fusion in the PSRF case, whereas the stand-alone cage specimen demonstrated fibrous tissue predominance and subsidence.
  • Positive bacterial cultures were identified in 6/28 dogs, but no dog developed clinically significant postoperative discospondylitis.
  • The authors concluded that both approaches are clinically viable, but cage + PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion potential.

Van Den Brink

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2026

Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis

2026-3-vcot-van-den-brink-5

Article Title: Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis

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 Perez Neto 2025 et al., on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, what was the most common site of failure in both groups?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 92% of both prosthetic and control femurs failed at the femoral neck.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Femoral neck.
92% of both prosthetic and control femurs failed at the femoral neck.

🔍 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-3

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., 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?

In Fitzpatrick 2024 et al., on ESF for pelvic fractures in cats, what was concluded regarding neurological complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Some cats presented with pre-existing deficits, but no new neurologic injuries occurred from ESF placement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No iatrogenic neurological deficits were observed.
Some cats presented with pre-existing deficits, but no new neurologic injuries occurred from ESF placement.

🔍 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-3

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 Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, what was the rate of acceptable pin placement using 3D-printed guides?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The 3DPG group had an acceptable placement rate of 87.5% vs 69.8% in FH group.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 87.5%.
The 3DPG group had an acceptable placement rate of 87.5% vs 69.8% in FH group.

🔍 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-1

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 Wolfe 2025 et al., on endoscopic corpectomy feasibility, at which spinal levels was the technique successfully performed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study demonstrated feasibility at all disc spaces from T11–12 through L3–4.
Incorrect. The correct answer is T11–12 through L3–4.
The study demonstrated feasibility at all disc spaces from T11–12 through L3–4.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Integrated endoscopic mini-hemilaminectomy and lateral corpectomy was feasible at all targeted sites from T11–12 through L3–4.
  • Target corpectomy dimensions were achieved or exceeded at every included intervertebral disc space.
  • Median corpectomy dimensions were ~23% vertebral body length, ~47% body height, and ~74% vertebral canal diameter.
  • Thoracic sites required a steeper learning curve, with early failures related to cannula positioning rather than drilling limitations.
  • Angled positioning (30°–60° away from the surgeon) subjectively improved drill trajectory and facilitated horizontal corpectomy access.
  • No rib head resection or rhizotomy was required to achieve target dimensions using the endoscopic system.
  • Excellent visualization of nerve roots and spinal cord was achieved through the 23-mm endoscopic cannula.
  • Incorrect intervertebral disc localization was the most common technical error, highlighting the value of intraoperative fluoroscopy.

Wolfe

Veterinary Surgery

8

2025

Integrated endoscopic thoracolumbar mini-hemilaminectomy and lateral corpectomy in cadaver dogs

2025-8-vs-wolfe-1

Article Title: Integrated endoscopic thoracolumbar mini-hemilaminectomy and lateral corpectomy in cadaver 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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, what was the difference in mechanical performance between short lag and short positional screws?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No statistical difference in mechanical performance (stiffness, peak, or yield load) was found between SLS and SPS.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No mechanical difference was observed.
No statistical difference in mechanical performance (stiffness, peak, or yield load) was found between SLS and SPS.

🔍 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-2

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?

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.