Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /nas/content/live/acvr/wp-content/themes/acvr/functions/TemplateHelpers.php on line 115
1 / 2
- This case differentiated between candidates in two ways. Firstly, the history and physical examination were strongly suggestive of a traumatic injury.
- Successful candidates recognized that the two lateral projections of the shoulder did not depict (or poorly depicted) the injury and asked for additional projections (either a cranioproximal-craniodistal [see below] or a craniomedial-caudolateral [see below] oblique view of the proximal humerus).
1 / 2
- All candidates who asked for one of these views successfully identified the fracture and earned the majority of the points available. Those who did not ask for additional views earned no points or very few points.
- Secondly, the case differentiated between candidates based on their knowledge of normal radiographic anatomy. The vast majority of candidates interpreted the normal glenoid notch as abnormal and concluded that it represented either an osseous cyst-like lesion, subchondral bone erosion, or articular fracture.
- Even after identifying the fracture, the majority of candidates concluded that the horse had two problems, rather than one.