Quiz Question

In Nicolas 2024 et al., what was a key advantage of the lateral scapular osteotomy approach versus dorsal or ventral routes?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The approach offered good foramen access while preserving articular facets and minimizing spinal disruption:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Avoided thoracic entry and preserved vertebral stability.
The approach offered good foramen access while preserving articular facets and minimizing spinal disruption:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 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-4

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the most common indication for revision surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Seven of the nine dogs underwent revision due to prosthetic luxation, most commonly ventral.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Luxation.
Seven of the nine dogs underwent revision due to prosthetic luxation, most commonly ventral.

🔍 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-1

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 Scott 2025 et al., on acetabular cup revision, what was the functional outcome in dogs that completed follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 6 dogs available for follow-up showed good to excellent clinical outcomes over 621 days.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Good to excellent.
All 6 dogs available for follow-up showed good to excellent clinical outcomes over 621 days.

🔍 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-5

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 Fitzpatrick 2024 et al., on ESF for pelvic fractures in cats, what was the reported overall fracture healing time?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All fractures healed radiographically within 9 weeks of surgery.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Within 9 weeks.
All fractures healed radiographically within 9 weeks of surgery.

🔍 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-1

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 Woelfel 2022 et al., on cervical locked facets, which vertebral levels were exclusively affected in this case series?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All locked facet injuries were at C5/6 or C6/7, based on imaging and intraoperative findings.
Incorrect. The correct answer is C5–C6 and C6–C7.
All locked facet injuries were at C5/6 or C6/7, based on imaging and intraoperative findings.

🔍 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-1

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 Becker 2026 et al., on lumbar spine PLC biomechanics, what explanation was given for the preservation of rotational stability despite PLCs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Rotational stability was attributed to the integrity of facet joints and dorsal structures, which were not affected by PLCs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Facet joints and lamina remained intact.
Rotational stability was attributed to the integrity of facet joints and dorsal structures, which were not affected by PLCs.

🔍 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-5

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 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 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?

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.