Quiz Question

In Kalmukov 2022 et al., on cell salvage efficacy, what was the average red blood cell mass (rbcM) recovery percentage?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Swab washing recovered an average of 84.74% of rbcM.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 84.7%.
Swab washing recovered an average of 84.74% of rbcM.

🔍 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-2

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 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 Korchek 2025 et al., on fracture gap risk, how did absence of external coaptation affect implant failure risk?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Absence of external coaptation was significantly associated with implant failure (OR = 10.1, p = .04).
Incorrect. The correct answer is It increased the risk of implant failure.
Absence of external coaptation was significantly associated with implant failure (OR = 10.1, p = .04).

🔍 Key Findings

80 toy breed dogs with surgically repaired transverse radius/ulna fractures were analyzed.
Fracture gap in the caudal cortex was present in 46% of cases.
Implant failure rate:

  • 27% in cases with fracture gap
  • 2% in cases without fracture gap

Fracture gap significantly associated with implant failure:

  • OR = 23.0, 95% CI: 2.7–197.9, p = 0.004

Absence of external coaptation also associated with increased implant failure risk:

  • OR = 10.1, 95% CI: 1.1–89.6, p = 0.04

Prolonged external coaptation (>1 week) linked to non-implant complications (skin wounds, osteopenia, osteomyelitis):

  • OR = 5.4, p = 0.04

Plate thickness, type, open screw holes, and working length were not statistically significant predictors of implant failure after multivariable analysis.

Korchek

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Association of fracture gap with implant failure in radius and ulna fractures in toy breed dogs—A multicenter retrospective cohort study

2025-2-VS-korchek-4

Article Title: Association of fracture gap with implant failure in radius and ulna fractures in toy breed dogs—A multicenter retrospective cohort 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?

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 Marti 2024 et al., on surgical outcomes in feline sialoceles, what conclusion was drawn about marsupialization alone as a treatment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No recurrence was reported in cats treated with marsupialization alone, although long-term follow-up was limited.
Incorrect. The correct answer is May be a viable first-line approach.
No recurrence was reported in cats treated with marsupialization alone, although long-term follow-up was limited.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Mandibular and sublingual glands were the most commonly involved salivary glands in feline sialoceles.
  • Left-sided lesions were more prevalent (71%) among affected cats.
  • Ranulae were present in over half (57%) of cases, highlighting the importance of thorough oral exams.
  • Surgical approaches included lateral, ventral, intraoral, or combinations thereof, with no recurrences reported.
  • Marsupialization alone (without gland removal) resolved clinical signs in 4/21 cats, with no short-term recurrence noted.
  • Complications occurred in 5/21 cats (24%), including incisional swelling and one case of feline oral pain syndrome.
  • One cat experienced iatrogenic injury from misidentification of the mandibular lymph node as the gland.
  • Median follow-up time beyond 30 days was 822 days (range: 90–1205), with no long-term recurrences or contralateral lesions observed.

Marti

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

Outcomes of surgically treated sialoceles in 21 cats: A multi‐institutional retrospective study (2010–2021)

2024-7-VS-marti-5

Article Title: Outcomes of surgically treated sialoceles in 21 cats: A multi‐institutional retrospective study (2010–2021)

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 Cola 2024 et al., on laparotomy-assisted endoscopy, what was the primary factor associated with the need to convert to enterotomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Intestinal wall damage was significantly associated with surgical conversion (p = .043).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Intestinal wall damage.
Intestinal wall damage was significantly associated with surgical conversion (p = .043).

🔍 Key Findings

  • LAER was effective (partial or complete) in 35/40 cases, regardless of FB location or type.
  • Intestinal wall damage significantly increased the likelihood of conversion to enterotomy (p = .043).
  • LAER led to significantly shorter hospitalization (median 48 h vs 72 h; p = .006).
  • Patients in the LAER group required less postoperative analgesia (median 36 h vs 48 h; p < .001).
  • Faster return to spontaneous feeding was seen in LAER group (median 24 h vs 36 h; p = .012).
  • No significant difference in complication rate or postoperative ileus between LAER and enterotomy groups.
  • Sharp, linear, or multiple FBs did not significantly affect LAER effectiveness.
  • Conversion to surgery was required in 5/40 LAER attempts, mostly due to immovable FBs or intestinal damage.

Cola

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

Laparotomy‐assisted endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies: Evaluation of this technique and postoperative recovery in dogs and cats

2024-7-VS-cola-1

Article Title: Laparotomy‐assisted endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies: Evaluation of this technique and postoperative recovery in dogs and 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, 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 Miller 2024 et al., on intestinal obstruction and catheter technique in cats, what was the overall success rate of the red rubber catheter technique (RRCT) for removing linear foreign bodies?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The RRCT successfully removed LFBOs in 20 out of 24 cases, representing 83% success.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 83%.
The RRCT successfully removed LFBOs in 20 out of 24 cases, representing 83% success.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cats with linear (LFBO) and discrete (DFBO) small intestinal obstructions had similar survival (98.2% vs. 97%, p = 1.0).
  • Postoperative complications were not significantly different between LFBO and DFBO cases (p = .1386).
  • Intestinal dehiscence was rare (only 2 cats), both in DFBOs, with no statistical difference between groups.
  • Red rubber catheter technique (RRCT) successfully removed LFBOs in 83% (20/24) of attempts.
  • All failed RRCTs occurred in cats with perforations or tissue nonviability.
  • Cats with failed RRCTs had longer clinical signs pre-surgery (median 6.5 vs. 2.0 days).
  • Surgical time was longer in LFBO cats (median 77 min vs. 58 min, p = .0018).
  • Preoperative septic peritonitis was rare (4/169 cats), but occurred only in linear or mixed FBO cases.

Miller

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

Linear and discrete foreign body small intestinal obstruction outcomes, complication risk factors, and single incision red rubber catheter technique success in cats

2024-7-VS-miller-1

Article Title: Linear and discrete foreign body small intestinal obstruction outcomes, complication risk factors, and single incision red rubber catheter technique success 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 Power 2022 et al., on liposomal bupivacaine use, what was concluded about its use in off-label orthopedic procedures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found no significant difference in complication rates between labeled and off-label orthopedic uses.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It appeared safe.
The study found no significant difference in complication rates between labeled and off-label orthopedic uses.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Overall complication rate was 19.7% (43/218), with most being mild (CSS 1).
  • Soft tissue procedures had higher complication rates (26%) than orthopedic procedures (11.6%) (P < 0.01).
  • No difference in complication rates between clean, clean-contaminated, and contaminated wounds (P = 0.55).
  • No difference in complication rates between labeled use (CCL surgery) and off-label orthopedic procedures (P = 0.21).
  • Majority of complications (63%) were mild, resolving without intervention or with topical therapy.
  • Severe complications requiring revision surgery were rare (2.3%) and occurred mainly in soft-tissue surgeries.
  • Most common complications included SSI (25.6%), dehiscence (16.3%), and seroma (14%).
  • Liposomal bupivacaine appears safe for use in broader orthopedic procedures beyond current labeling.

Power

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Incidence and severity of short‐term incisional complications after intraoperative local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine in dogs

2022-4-VS-power-3

Article Title: Incidence and severity of short‐term incisional complications after intraoperative local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine 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 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?

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.