Quiz Question

In Ferreira 2025 et al., on tibial torsion measurement, which population was primarily studied?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study focused on dogs with MPL, mostly from small breeds.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Small-breed dogs with MPL.
The study focused on dogs with MPL, mostly from small breeds.

🔍 Key Findings

Objective: Validate a new 3D CT-based method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with MPL, comparing it to a traditional method.

Sample: 40 tibiae from client-owned dogs with MPL (primarily small-breed).

Repeatability (intraobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.99 → excellent agreement

Reproducibility (interobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.83 → high agreement
  • Traditional method: ICC = 0.52 → moderate agreement

Torsion angle measurements:

  • New method avg: 16.00° ± 8.77
  • Traditional method avg: 8.76° ± 4.92

Conclusion: The new method is more repeatable, reproducible, and provides higher torsion values than the traditional Aper method, especially reliable for small-breed dogs.

Ferreira

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

2025-3-VS-ferreira-5

Article Title: Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

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 Aldrich 2023 et al., on liposomal bupivacaine in TPLO, what conclusion was drawn about %BW distribution to the operated limb?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No difference in %BWdist was found at any time point between LB and placebo dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It did not differ significantly between groups.
No difference in %BWdist was found at any time point between LB and placebo dogs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) infiltration did not reduce the need for rescue analgesia compared with placebo in dogs undergoing TPLO.
  • CMPS-SF pain scores were not significantly different between LB and placebo groups at any postoperative time point.
  • % body weight distribution (%BWdist) to the operated limb did not differ significantly between treatment groups across all time points.
  • No correlation was found between CMPS-SF scores and %BWdist, suggesting these metrics assess different aspects of postoperative pain.
  • Postoperative carprofen administration was standardized, and LB did not provide additional detectable analgesic benefit.
  • Three-layer infiltration technique (joint capsule, fascia, subcutis) was used consistently across all cases.
  • Adverse events were minor and comparable between LB and placebo groups.
  • Post hoc analysis suggested a much larger sample size (58–436 dogs) would be needed to detect significant differences in %BWdist.

Aldrich

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal suspension using static bodyweight distribution and subjective pain scoring in dogs after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgery

2023-5-VS-aldrich-3

Article Title: Blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal suspension using static bodyweight distribution and subjective pain scoring in dogs after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgery

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 Drudi 2022 et al., on CAL vs TAL outcomes, which technique resulted in a significantly greater increase in rima glottidis area at both postoperative time points?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CAL showed a greater rima glottidis area increase than TAL at both immediate and 15-day assessments.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cricoarytenoid lateralization (CAL).
CAL showed a greater rima glottidis area increase than TAL at both immediate and 15-day assessments.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cricoarytenoid lateralization (CAL) resulted in a significantly greater increase in rima glottidis area at both immediate (205%) and 15-day (199%) time points compared to thyroarytenoid lateralization (TAL) (152% and 127%, respectively).
  • TAL group showed a significant reduction in rima glottidis area between immediate and 15-day postoperative measurements (P < .05), while CAL group had no significant reduction over time.
  • No dogs in either group showed postoperative complications, including aspiration pneumonia, at the 15-day follow-up.
  • All dogs showed improved clinical signs, including decreased stridor and increased exercise tolerance by day 15.
  • CAL produced more stable postoperative glottic area, potentially due to preserved anatomical tension, whereas TAL might experience tension loss due to thyroid cartilage repositioning.
  • Both procedures were technically effective and performed under the same protocol by a single board-certified surgeon.
  • Endoscopic image analysis was used to quantify rima glottidis area, demonstrating a reliable objective method for surgical outcome assessment.
  • Clinical outcome did not differ between groups, despite CAL showing a larger rima glottidis area.

Drudi

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Comparison of immediate and short‐term outcomes of cricoarytenoid and thyroarytenoid lateralization in dogs with idiopathic laryngeal paralysis

2022-3-VS-drudi-1

Article Title: Comparison of immediate and short‐term outcomes of cricoarytenoid and thyroarytenoid lateralization in dogs with idiopathic laryngeal paralysis

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 Zweig 2025 et al., on healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures, what conclusion was reached regarding non-surgical management?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Non-surgical management resulted in good to excellent outcomes but was associated with medial patellar luxation in some dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It is acceptable but may increase patellar luxation risk.
Non-surgical management resulted in good to excellent outcomes but was associated with medial patellar luxation in some dogs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Surgically managed TTAF resulted in excellent clinical outcomes at skeletal maturity, with all dogs having normal limb function and no stifle instability.
  • Surgical treatment significantly altered proximal tibial morphology, including decreased tibial plateau angle (TPA) and increased patellar position (PP) compared with the contralateral limb.
  • Axial tibial tuberosity position (TTP-A) increased and transverse position (TTP-T) decreased in surgically treated stifles, indicating distal and caudal tuberosity migration.
  • Non-surgically managed TTAF did not significantly alter tibial morphology or PP, but outcomes were more variable.
  • Medial patellar luxation developed in 2/6 non-surgically treated dogs, whereas none occurred in surgically managed cases.
  • Pins-only and pin–tension band constructs produced similar radiographic changes and outcomes.
  • Despite morphologic changes, no dogs developed cruciate ligament instability at follow-up.
  • Non-surgical management yielded good to excellent owner-reported outcomes, but carried a potential increased risk of patellar luxation.

Zweig

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

6

2025

Treatment outcome and radiographic appearance of healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures in skeletally mature dogs: 21 cases (2016–2023)

2025-6-VCOT-zweig-5

Article Title: Treatment outcome and radiographic appearance of healed tibial tuberosity avulsion fractures in skeletally mature dogs: 21 cases (2016–2023)

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 Lemmon 2025 et al., on synovitis severity scoring, what was the most common synovitis severity score observed during arthroscopy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Score 3/5 was the most frequently observed severity grade, present in 55.2% of joints.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 3/5.
Score 3/5 was the most frequently observed severity grade, present in 55.2% of joints.

🔍 Key Findings

Synovitis was present in 100% of canine stifles with CCL disease (n = 163).

The most frequent severity score was 3/5 (55.2%), followed by 4/5 (24.5%).

Higher synovitis scores were significantly associated with:

  • Higher median cartilage scores (p = .042, OR = 2.1 per unit increase)
  • Longer duration of clinical signs (p < .001, OR = 1.27 per month)

Bodyweight (p = .083) and sex (p = .17) were not statistically significant in multivariable analysis.

Bucket handle meniscal tears were not associated with synovitis severity.

Clinical implication: Earlier intervention may help reduce synovitis and slow OA progression.

Lemmon

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Arthroscopic synovitis severity scoring in canine stifles with cranial cruciate ligament disease

2025-3-VS-lemmon-1

Article Title: Arthroscopic synovitis severity scoring in canine stifles with cranial cruciate ligament disease

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 Banks 2024 et al., on CCWO planning accuracy, what was the **mean planned tibial plateau angle (TPA)** using Oxley’s modified method?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mean planned TPA across all groups was 7.6°, exceeding the 5° target.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 7.6°.
Mean planned TPA across all groups was 7.6°, exceeding the 5° target.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Oxley's modified CCWO did not achieve the target TPA of 5° in most cases, even with planning.
  • Mean planned TPA was 7.6°, higher than target, and consistent across dog sizes.
  • Postoperative TPAs were significantly higher in small dogs (median 7°) than in large dogs (median 4.5°).
  • Distalization >7.5 mm of the osteotomy from the patellar tendon led to increased under-correction of TPA.
  • Only dogs with preoperative TPA >35° achieved post-planning TPAs close to the 5° target.
  • Postoperative osteotomy positions were generally more distal than recommended (8.6 mm median).
  • Virtual plate fit was appropriate for all dogs at 5 mm or 7.5 mm positions, suggesting no need for excessive distalization.
  • Excessive correction leading to negative TPAs occurred in some cases, risking caudal cruciate ligament strain.

Banks

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

A mismatch of planning and achieved tibial plateau angle in cranial closing wedge surgery: An in silico and clinical evaluation of 100 cases

2024-8-VS-banks-1

Article Title: A mismatch of planning and achieved tibial plateau angle in cranial closing wedge surgery: An in silico and clinical evaluation of 100 cases

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 Fracka 2025 et al., on cementless knee replacement, what postoperative improvement in stifle range of motion (ROM) was documented?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. ROM improved from 90° preoperatively to 120° postoperatively over 6 weeks【57†Veterinary Surgery†L1-L20】
Incorrect. The correct answer is From 90° to 120°.
ROM improved from 90° preoperatively to 120° postoperatively over 6 weeks【57†Veterinary Surgery†L1-L20】

🔍 Key Findings

Subject: 7-year-old Labrador underwent cementless total knee replacement (TKR) due to severe stifle OA.

Clinical function:

  • Improved ROM from 90° pre-op to 120° post-op.
  • Weight-bearing increased from toe-touching to 70% bodyweight by 6 weeks post-op.
  • No visible lameness by 14 weeks.

Implant performance:

  • No complications at any follow-up points.
  • No osteolysis, loosening, or metallosis at 6-year necropsy.

Wear evaluation:

  • Mild UHMWPE insert wear, localized to caudal edges.

Histologic findings:

  • Robust osseointegration at implant-bone interface.
  • Fibrous tissue only in areas lacking porous coating.

Conclusion:

  • Cementless TKR demonstrated excellent 6-year survival and functional outcomes.
  • Support for considering early surgical intervention in severe stifle OA.

Fracka

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Long‐term clinical outcomes and retrieval analysis of a cementless total knee replacement in a dog

2025-3-VS-fracka-1

Article Title: Long‐term clinical outcomes and retrieval analysis of a cementless total knee replacement in a dog

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 Aldrich 2023 et al., on liposomal bupivacaine in TPLO, how was analgesic success defined?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Success was defined as not requiring rescue opioids within 48h post-op.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No need for rescue analgesia over 48 hours.
Success was defined as not requiring rescue opioids within 48h post-op.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) infiltration did not reduce the need for rescue analgesia compared with placebo in dogs undergoing TPLO.
  • CMPS-SF pain scores were not significantly different between LB and placebo groups at any postoperative time point.
  • % body weight distribution (%BWdist) to the operated limb did not differ significantly between treatment groups across all time points.
  • No correlation was found between CMPS-SF scores and %BWdist, suggesting these metrics assess different aspects of postoperative pain.
  • Postoperative carprofen administration was standardized, and LB did not provide additional detectable analgesic benefit.
  • Three-layer infiltration technique (joint capsule, fascia, subcutis) was used consistently across all cases.
  • Adverse events were minor and comparable between LB and placebo groups.
  • Post hoc analysis suggested a much larger sample size (58–436 dogs) would be needed to detect significant differences in %BWdist.

Aldrich

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal suspension using static bodyweight distribution and subjective pain scoring in dogs after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgery

2023-5-VS-aldrich-2

Article Title: Blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of bupivacaine liposomal suspension using static bodyweight distribution and subjective pain scoring in dogs after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgery

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 Isono 2025 et al., on tibial malalignment in MPL, which of the following was TRUE regarding the correlation findings?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. PTMTA had a strong positive correlation with TTA (r = 0.733) and CRA (r = 0.643).
Incorrect. The correct answer is PTMTA had a correlation coefficient of 0.733 with TTA.
PTMTA had a strong positive correlation with TTA (r = 0.733) and CRA (r = 0.643).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Proximal Tibia Metatarsal Angle (PTMTA) was significantly increased in dogs with grade 3 and 4 MPL, making it a useful marker for severity.
  • PTMTA strongly correlated with Tibial Torsion Angle (TTA) (r = 0.733) and Crural Rotation Angle (CRA) (r = 0.643), integrating multiple morphological deformities.
  • Grade 4 MPL cases showed significant internal tibial torsion, increased mMPTA, and decreased MDTT/PTW—indicating both rotation and medial displacement.
  • DTMTA was significantly more negative in grade 4, indicating a consistent pattern of internal foot rotation with disease severity.
  • PTMTA can be visually assessed during palpation, offering preoperative utility without CT.
  • Among toy poodles, PTMTA showed significant differences even between grades 3 and normal, suggesting breed-specific severity patterns.
  • Corrective osteotomy may need to address tibial as well as femoral deformities in severe MPL cases with high PTMTA.
  • Younger dogs with grade 4 MPL had more severe deformities, possibly due to early onset or developmental progression.

Isono

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

Tibial Torsion Malalignment in Small Dogs with Medial Patellar Luxation

2025-4-VCOT-isono-5

Article Title: Tibial Torsion Malalignment in Small Dogs with Medial Patellar Luxation

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 McLean 2024 et al., what was the average increase in TPA among dogs with rock-back?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dogs with rock-back had an average TPA increase of 3.2° ± 2.6°:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 3.2° ± 2.6°.
Dogs with rock-back had an average TPA increase of 3.2° ± 2.6°:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 95 TPLO procedures reviewed retrospectively with follow-up radiographs
  • Rock-back defined as increase in tibial plateau angle (TPA) ≥2° from immediate post-op to recheck
  • 21% of stifles (20/95) experienced rock-back
  • Mean ΔTPA among rock-back cases = 3.2° ± 2.6°
  • No implant failures or tibial tuberosity fractures were reported in these cases
  • Plate inclination and exit cut angle (ECA) were not associated with increased risk of rock-back (p = 0.4 and 0.2)
  • Authors hypothesize that compression across osteotomy in vivo may mitigate torsional effects from ECA, unlike in gap-model studies
  • Emphasizes that rock-back is relatively common, even with well-placed implants

Mclean

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Effect of Plate Inclination and Osteotomy Positioning on Rock-back following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy in Dogs

2024-6-VCOT-mclean-3

Article Title: Effect of Plate Inclination and Osteotomy Positioning on Rock-back following Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy in 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: Stifle Joint
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.