Quiz Question

In Healy 2025 et al., on incidental PBBs, what recommendation is made regarding prophylactic lung resection?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. With no SP observed, authors do not recommend prophylactic lung removal for incidental PBBs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Not justified based on study data.
With no SP observed, authors do not recommend prophylactic lung removal for incidental PBBs.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 2,178 canine CTs reviewed retrospectively.
Prevalence: Incidental PBBs found in 1.37% (30/2178).
Outcome: None of the dogs with incidental PBBs developed clinical spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) over a median follow-up of 1255 days.
Significant Associations:

  • Age: Dogs with PBBs were significantly older (median 10.5 yrs vs. 8.2 yrs, p = .001).
  • CT indication: PBBs more likely during neoplastic staging (p = .006).

PBB Characteristics:

  • Total = 60 PBBs (median 1/dog; range 1–7).
  • Location: 35% in left caudal, 31.6% right caudal, only 13.3% in right cranial lobe.
  • Size-based: 25 bullae (>10 mm), 35 blebs (≤10 mm).

Conclusion: Prophylactic resection of incidental PBBs not justified given no observed SP risk in this population.

Healy

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Significance of incidentally identified bullae and blebs on thoracic computed tomography and prevalence of subsequent pneumothorax in dogs

2025-1-VS-healy-3

Article Title: Significance of incidentally identified bullae and blebs on thoracic computed tomography and prevalence of subsequent pneumothorax 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 Woelfel 2022 et al., on cervical locked facets, what was the most consistent outcome in dogs with follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 8/8 dogs with outcome data regained ambulation, whether treated surgically or medically.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Functional recovery in most dogs regardless of treatment.
8/8 dogs with outcome data regained ambulation, whether treated surgically or medically.

🔍 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-5

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 Kalmukov 2022 et al., on cell salvage efficacy, what was the mean percentage of red blood cell mass (rbcM) recovered using direct suction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Direct suction recovered a mean of 88.43% of the red blood cell mass.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 88.4%.
Direct suction recovered a mean of 88.43% of the red blood cell mass.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Direct suction salvaged more red blood cell mass (rbcM) than swab washing: 88.43% vs 84.74% (p = .015)
  • Swab washing still achieved high recovery (84.74%), making it a viable adjunct when suction is not possible
  • No significant difference in post-salvage PCV between methods (~34% for Su and ~33.9% for Sw)
  • Total salvaged blood volume was significantly higher using direct suction (143 mL vs 139.8 mL; p < .001)
  • Leukocytes are removed during salvage, potentially lowering risk of cytokine-mediated transfusion reactions
  • Expired pRBCs were used, but device still achieved high RBC recovery, supporting clinical utility
  • Swab washing via manual agitation may cause more RBC destruction than direct suction
  • Cell salvage may avoid complications of allogeneic transfusions, like storage lesions and immunologic reactions

Kalmukov

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Ex vivo evaluation of a novel cell salvage device to recover canine erythrocytes

2022-8-VS-kalmukov-1

Article Title: Ex vivo evaluation of a novel cell salvage device to recover canine erythrocytes

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 Antonakakis 2022 et al., on telovelar tumor resection, how long did the dog remain neurologically normal after surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The dog remained neurologically normal 28 months after surgery with no recurrence.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 28 months.
The dog remained neurologically normal 28 months after surgery with no recurrence.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Telovelar approach enabled complete resection of a fourth ventricle choroid plexus tumor in a dog without postoperative complications.
  • Postoperative MRI confirmed gross total tumor removal, and the dog remained neurologically normal 28 months post-surgery.
  • The tela choroidea was used as a surgical landmark and incised to allow atraumatic access to the tumor.
  • Cerebellum was spared using this technique, minimizing risk of cerebellar injury (e.g., cerebellar mutism).
  • No hemorrhagic complications were noted during surgery due to dissection through avascular planes.
  • Histopathology favored choroid plexus carcinoma based on mitotic index (9/10 HPFs), though definitive diagnosis remained pending.
  • The case highlights the utility of telovelar over transvermian approach, given its minimally traumatic nature and improved exposure.
  • Survival beyond 2 years without adjunctive therapy suggests surgical excision alone may be curative in select cases.

Antonakakis

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Use of a telovelar approach for complete resection of a choroid plexus tumor in a dog

2022-8-VS-antonakakis-5

Article Title: Use of a telovelar approach for complete resection of a choroid plexus tumor 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 Winston 2023 et al., on LES-AS surgery outcomes, which preoperative treatment was discontinued postoperatively in all dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Oral sildenafil was stopped after surgery, supporting the idea that surgical treatment alone was effective in maintaining clinical improvement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Sildenafil.
Oral sildenafil was stopped after surgery, supporting the idea that surgical treatment alone was effective in maintaining clinical improvement.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Modified Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication improved vomiting/regurgitation scores by 180%, QoL by 100%, and owner-perceived body weight by 63% (P < .05).
  • 6 of 9 dogs with postoperative VFSS showed objective improvement in gastric filling scores; others remained stable.
  • Oral sildenafil was discontinued postoperatively in all dogs, indicating surgical success comparable to medical management.
  • 12 of 13 dogs survived to discharge; one dog was euthanized due to aspiration pneumonia postoperatively.
  • 50% of dogs experienced gastrostomy tube complications, higher than reported in previous literature.
  • Most complications were gastrostomy-tube related, with some requiring surgical correction (e.g., tube migration, leakage).
  • Feeding strategies (Bailey chair, elevated bowls) and food consistency (gruel/liquid) remained essential postoperatively to control regurgitation.
  • 9 of 11 owners would opt for the surgery again; those who wouldn’t cited risk or lack of efficacy.

Winston

Veterinary Surgery

2

2023

Management and outcomes of 13 dogs treated with a modified Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication for lower esophageal sphincter achalasia-like syndrome

2023-2-VS-winston-4

Article Title: Management and outcomes of 13 dogs treated with a modified Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication for lower esophageal sphincter achalasia-like syndrome

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 Song 2024 et al., on CT vs cystoscopy for ectopic ureters in dogs, what did the authors conclude regarding CT's role in surgical planning?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CT misclassified too many dogs to serve as the sole diagnostic tool; cystoscopy is recommended for confirmation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CT should be confirmed with cystoscopy.
CT misclassified too many dogs to serve as the sole diagnostic tool; cystoscopy is recommended for confirmation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • CT correctly identified ectopic ureters in 91% of dogs, but missed 50% of normal ureters, limiting its negative predictive value.
  • Sensitivity for intramural ectopic ureters was 65%, while specificity was 71%, indicating moderate diagnostic performance.
  • Sensitivity for extramural ectopic ureters was only 29%, despite a high specificity of 97%.
  • CT was inaccurate in predicting ureteral orifice location, with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 76% depending on the site.
  • 26% of dogs were misclassified for cystoscopic laser ablation (CLA) eligibility based on CT findings alone.
  • Overall CT accuracy for CLA candidacy was 74%, but a significant minority would have been inappropriately treated.
  • Multivariate analysis found no predictive factors (e.g., colon distension, body weight) for when CT would be incorrect.
  • Authors recommend confirmatory cystoscopy to verify CT findings prior to treatment planning.

Song

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Receiver operating characteristics of computed tomography (CT) compared to cystoscopy in diagnosis of canine ectopic ureters: Thirty-five cases

2024-3-VS-song-5

Article Title: Receiver operating characteristics of computed tomography (CT) compared to cystoscopy in diagnosis of canine ectopic ureters: Thirty-five 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 Socha 2024 et al., what is a clinical implication of UTE MRI for stifle evaluation in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. UTE T2* mapping may identify degenerative changes missed by exam or FSE MRI:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is It detects early CrCL damage before instability is palpable.
UTE T2* mapping may identify degenerative changes missed by exam or FSE MRI:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Normative ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI T2* values were established for:
    • Patellar ligament (PL): T2*L = 4.65 ms
    • Cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL): T2*L = 5.99 ms
    • Caudal cruciate ligament (CdCL): T2*L = 7.06 ms
  • Statistically significant differences in T2*L values were found between:
    • PL vs. CrCL (p = 0.03)
    • PL vs. CdCL (p = 0.0097)
    • CrCL vs. CdCL (p = 0.03)
  • No significant differences in short T2* (T2*S) values across ligaments.
  • Study highlights potential of UTE MRI to detect early ligament changes even without physical instability.
  • May guide early diagnosis in partial CrCL rupture where standard MRI is limited.

Socha

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cruciate Ligaments in Normal Beagles

2024-2-VCOT-socha-5

Article Title: Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cruciate Ligaments in Normal Beagles

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 Matz 2022 et al., on stapler size comparison, what is the clinical significance of the finding that all stapler groups had ILPs exceeding 25 mmHg?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study used 25 mmHg as a reference threshold; all stapler groups exceeded this, suggesting functional closure under physiological conditions.
Incorrect. The correct answer is They exceed normal intraluminal pressures in dogs.
The study used 25 mmHg as a reference threshold; all stapler groups exceeded this, suggesting functional closure under physiological conditions.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No significant difference in initial leak pressure (ILP) among TA 30 V3 2.5 mm, TA 60 3.5 mm, and TA 60 4.8 mm stapler sizes (P = .78).
  • All stapler types exceeded the physiological intraluminal pressure threshold (~25 mmHg), suggesting acceptable leak resistance.
  • Mean ILPs: TA 30 V3 (181.5 mmHg), TA 60 3.5 mm (112 mmHg), TA 60 4.8 mm (77.2 mmHg).
  • Leakage occurred at the staple line in 23 of 24 specimens; only one had ileal wall rupture.
  • No correlation found between ILP and cadaver weight, cecal wall thickness, or cecal length.
  • Cecal wall thickness averaged 4.9 mm, yet staple heights ranged only from 1.0–2.0 mm.
  • One specimen in each TA 60 group leaked near or below physiologic pressures, suggesting rare outliers.
  • Study supports clinical viability of all tested stapler sizes for canine typhlectomy, but highlights need for in vivo data on healing and complications.

Matz

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Ex vivo comparison of different thoracoabdominal stapler sizes for typhlectomy in canine cadavers

2022-4-VS-matz-4

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of different thoracoabdominal stapler sizes for typhlectomy in canine cadavers

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 Loh 2024 et al., on treatment outcomes for CvHL in dogs, which nonsurgical method had the highest success rate?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Hobbles achieved a 61.8% success rate, the highest among nonsurgical treatments.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Hobbles.
Hobbles achieved a 61.8% success rate, the highest among nonsurgical treatments.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Low-trauma events caused 82.9% of CvHL cases; Poodles and poodle-crosses represented 49.4% of cases.
  • Success rate of hobbles (61.8%) was significantly higher than closed reduction alone (10.3%) or Ehmer sling (18.5%).
  • Multivariate analysis found hobbles 7.62x more likely to succeed vs. closed reduction (p = .001).
  • Specialist surgeons had higher success with nonsurgical management (OR: 2.68; p = .047).
  • Older age associated with better outcomes (OR: 1.15 per year; p < .0005).
  • Ehmer sling is not recommended due to high failure and complication rates (60.6%).
  • Toggle rod stabilization had a high surgical success rate (88.2%) with low complication.
  • No link was found between CvHL and hip dysplasia or OA in most cases (only 2/108 showed OA).

Loh

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Caudoventral hip luxation in 160 dogs (2003–2023): A multicenter retrospective case series

2024-4-VS-loh-1

Article Title: Caudoventral hip luxation in 160 dogs (2003–2023): A multicenter retrospective case series

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 Ibrahim 2022 et al., on scrotal arterial supply, what was concluded regarding the use of scrotal flaps in neutered dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Neutered or cryptorchid dogs may have insufficient scrotal tissue for reliable flap design.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Scrotum may be too small or absent.
Neutered or cryptorchid dogs may have insufficient scrotal tissue for reliable flap design.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Dorsal scrotal arteries, branching from the ventral perineal arteries, are the dominant arterial supply to the scrotum in dogs.
  • The ventral scrotal arteries, arising from the external pudendal arteries, perfused only the cranial scrotal border and were inconsistently present or absent in some dogs.
  • A scrotal flap based on the dorsal scrotal arteries showed strong perfusion and may be a viable axial pattern flap.
  • Perfusion was consistent across fresh and frozen cadavers, showing no difference due to preservation method.
  • Poor flap survival (27%) occurred when based on cranial supply alone (i.e., ventral scrotal arteries), confirming importance of preserving caudal supply.
  • There are anastomoses between dorsal and ventral scrotal arteries, offering collateral flow but insufficient alone for complete perfusion.
  • Scrotal flaps based on the caudal pedicle may be applicable for reconstruction of proximal medial/lateral thigh wounds.
  • Proposed flap requires careful preservation of ventral perineal arteries, ideally designed 2.5–3 cm lateral to midline in large dogs.

Ibrahim

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Arterial supply to the scrotum: A cadaveric angiographic study

2022-4-VS-ibrahim-4

Article Title: Arterial supply to the scrotum: A cadaveric angiographic study

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: Conservative vs Surgical
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.