Cases, discussion & exam tips.
Read an image case and commit to your call, debate management, swap exam-day experiences, and share what worked when you studied — a friendly place to pressure-test your reasoning before the exam.
- Threads
- 61
- Comments
- 0
threads posted
replies shared
FRCS short cases: the upper-limb station timing lesson
I learned to structure the 6-minute hand and shoulder cases by leading with the key positive finding and diagnosis before expanding to investigations. Practising with a timer on real patients in clinic prevented me from over-describing irrelevant negatives. This kept the examiners engaged and left time for management discussion.
Viva on spinal stenosis: admitting the evidence gap
When pushed on whether to fuse every degenerative spondylolisthesis case, I initially hedged. The examiners wanted a clear position backed by the RCTs they referenced. I now prepare two-sentence summaries of the key trials for each major controversy so I can state my practice and the supporting or conflicting data without waffling.
Paediatric clinical case: always examine gait first
My unprepared clubfoot case went poorly until I demonstrated the full gait assessment before touching the foot. The examiners explicitly praised the systematic approach. From then on I began every paediatric case with observation and gait, even if the referral mentioned only a hand or spine issue.
FRACS operative surgery viva: drawing the approach
They asked me to draw the posterior approach to the humerus on the whiteboard. I had practised this on paper but the pressure made my lines shaky. I now rehearse drawing all common approaches life-size on a whiteboard at least three times before the exam so the motor memory is automatic.
EBOT oral: handling being corrected mid-answer
I started describing the wrong classification for a pelvic fracture and the examiner gently redirected me. Instead of freezing, I acknowledged the correction and immediately restated the correct classification with the modification. They later commented that graceful correction handling was a marker they looked for in borderline candidates.
Mock viva failure on basic science: the histology trap
I was shown a slide of giant cell tumour and launched into management without describing the histology. The examiners stopped me and asked what I saw. I now force myself to spend the first 30 seconds describing the microscopic features aloud even when the question seems purely clinical.
ABOS case log review: the complication I had to defend
One of my logged ankle fractures developed wound breakdown. The examiners spent five minutes on my post-operative protocol and antibiotic choice. Having the actual operation note, culture results and follow-up photos ready allowed me to defend the decision logically rather than appearing defensive.
FRCS clinical: the 6-minute hand case is shorter than you think
In my clinicals, the examiner stopped me after what felt like 90 seconds of my hand examination and said 'you've made your diagnosis — tell me what you've found.' I'd wasted time on a full routine screen before demonstrating the specific provocative test I actually needed. The lesson: for hand cases, lead with a focused exam toward your clinical suspicion, then broaden if needed. Don't save the money-shot test for last.
Viva trap: when they ask about a condition you've never heard of
In my FRACS structured viva, I was asked about a rare inherited connective tissue disorder and its orthopaedic implications — something not in any textbook I'd read. I panicked and froze, which cost me marks. After reflecting, I realised the examiner was testing my reasoning framework, not recall: state what you don't know, work from basic science principles, and think aloud. Saying 'I'm not familiar with this specific entity, but based on the name and the distribution described, I would approach it by considering...' would have been far better than silence.
MCQ strategy: the questions where two answers seem equally correct
In the FRCS part 1 MCQ, I kept getting stuck on questions where eliminating down to two options felt arbitrary. The breakthrough for me was recognising that many of these are testing your ability to choose the MOST correct answer from a slightly flawed list, not find a perfect one. I started spending less time agonising and more time ranking the options by the weight of evidence behind each. This alone probably saved me 5 minutes across the paper for questions to return to.
The clinical case you didn't prepare for: mine was a paediatric clubfoot
I'd spent months on adult reconstruction and trauma cases and walked into the FRCS clinical to find a toddler with residual clubfoot deformity as one of my stations. I knew the Ponseti principles but couldn't demonstrate the Pirani score confidently or articulate the surgical options for relapse. My advice: don't assume your weakest subspecialty won't appear. Even if paediatrics isn't your daily practice, you need one well-rehearsed paediatric case framework for the clinical exam.
FRCS viva: they kept digging until I admitted what I'd change
The adult reconstruction viva started with an uncomplicated TKR case and progressively asked me to justify each surgical choice — approach, implant design, fixation strategy. It felt like they were satisfied until the final question: 'What would you do differently if the implant had been cementless?' The examiner later told my consultant that they wanted to see whether I understood the principles behind my choices rather than just reciting a protocol. Being able to argue both sides of a decision is what separates a pass from a clear pass.