Quiz Question

In Viljoen 2022 et al., on surgical hand prep protocols, what factor significantly influenced post-surgical contamination risk?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Perforation of the thumb glove was a statistically significant factor contributing to higher CFU levels.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Glove perforation in the thumb.
Perforation of the thumb glove was a statistically significant factor contributing to higher CFU levels.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Pre-ABHR hand preparation lowered CFUs at 120 minutes post-gloving compared to ABHR alone (P = .001)
  • pH-neutral soap followed by ABHR outperformed ABHR alone despite being nonmedicated (P = .001)
  • CHX and BAC prewashes showed better immediate CFU reduction post-preparation than pHN (P = .012)
  • No significant difference in total log10 CFU reduction across all four groups over the full surgical period (P = .362)
  • Glove perforation in the thumb was a significant contamination factor (P = .036)
  • All dogs recovered without surgical site infections, though SSI incidence was not a primary outcome
  • Neutralizer validation lacking, so CHX results interpreted cautiously
  • Study supports a 1-minute hand wash with pH-neutral soap prior to ABHR as effective and safe

Viljoen

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of 4 surgical hand‐preparation procedures prior to application of an alcohol-based hand rub in veterinary students

2022-3-VS-viljoen-3

Article Title: Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of 4 surgical hand‐preparation procedures prior to application of an alcohol-based hand rub in veterinary students

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 Maeta 2022 et al., on total cystectomy in cats, which surgical method was used to prevent ureteral bending and misalignment during cutaneous ureterostomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The modified Toyoda technique minimized ureteral misalignment by creating a rectangular ureteral stoma and aligning it precisely with the abdominal wall and skin incisions.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Modified Toyoda technique.
The modified Toyoda technique minimized ureteral misalignment by creating a rectangular ureteral stoma and aligning it precisely with the abdominal wall and skin incisions.

🔍 Key Findings

  • First reported case of total cystectomy and bilateral cutaneous ureterostomy in a cat using a modified Toyoda technique.
  • Histologically complete tumor resection was achieved, with tumor-free ureter and urethral margins >20 mm.
  • The modified Toyoda technique involved shaping the ureter into a fish-mouth aperture and anastomosing it to a rectangular skin defect for stomal formation.
  • Incontinence was managed using a diaper changed every 6–8 hours, with no dermatological complications.
  • Obstruction of the right ureter occurred 14 months post-op, associated with a subcutaneous nodule at the anastomosis site.
  • Despite incontinence, owner satisfaction and perceived quality of life were high, with the cat living ~16 months post-op.
  • The stents were removed on days 7 (left) and 28 (right) postoperatively, with initial patency maintained until 14 months.
  • This surgical approach may offer palliative or curative benefit for feline trigonal TCC where partial cystectomy is not feasible.

Maeta

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Modified Toyoda technique for total cystectomy and cutaneous ureterostomy in a cat

2022-8-VS-maeta-1

Article Title: Modified Toyoda technique for total cystectomy and cutaneous ureterostomy in a cat

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 Glenn 2024 et al., on client-based SSI surveillance, which major limitation was noted in detecting deep or implant-associated infections?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Algorithms required wound healing problems, which may exclude deep infections not presenting externally.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Algorithms relied on superficial wound signs only.
Algorithms required wound healing problems, which may exclude deep infections not presenting externally.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Algorithm 3 had the highest overall accuracy (95.5%) in diagnosing SSIs from client questionnaires.
  • Active surveillance identified 19.4% more SSIs compared to passive surveillance alone.
  • SSI rate was 8.22% across 754 surgeries; 33.9% of SSIs required revision surgery.
  • Client-based responses were 37.9% more frequent than those from referring veterinarians.
  • Deep/implant SSIs could be missed if not associated with visible wound healing problems.
  • Two late SSIs (after 90 days) occurred, both linked to implant surgeries.
  • Algorithm 1 was the most sensitive (87.1%) but less specific; useful for screening.
  • Algorithm 2 had the highest specificity (97.9%); useful as a “rule-in” diagnostic method.

Glenn

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Evaluation of a client questionnaire at diagnosing surgical site infections in an active surveillance system

2024-8-VS-glenn-5

Article Title: Evaluation of a client questionnaire at diagnosing surgical site infections in an active surveillance system

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 Caiazzo 2025 et al., on suture material comparison, what percentage of dehisced incisions demonstrated both skin and subcutis involvement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 3 out of 21 dogs with available data had both skin and subcutis dehiscence, approximately 14.3%.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 14%.
3 out of 21 dogs with available data had both skin and subcutis dehiscence, approximately 14.3%.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No significant difference in non-infected incisional dehiscence rates among groups using PDS vs. Monocryl for subcutaneous and skin closure.
  • Overall dehiscence rate: 9.48% (22/232 dogs).
  • Postoperative antibiotic use and signs of inflammation were significantly associated with dehiscence (p = .023 and p < .001, respectively).
  • Dogs not receiving postoperative antibiotics had a higher dehiscence rate (14.74%) than those that did (5.84%).
  • Most dehiscence cases were superficial (85.7%), and the average length of dehiscence was 1.71 cm.
  • No statistically significant impact of weight, BCS, incision length, procedure type, surgeon experience, closure direction, or barrier use on dehiscence rate.

Caiazzo

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Impact of suture materials polydioxanone and poliglecaprone 25 on non-infected clean orthopedic stifle procedure incisional dehiscence rates

2025-3-VS-caiazzo-5

Article Title: Impact of suture materials polydioxanone and poliglecaprone 25 on non-infected clean orthopedic stifle procedure incisional dehiscence rates

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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, how did screw positioning affect neurovascular safety?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All short screws were located lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding this risk entirely.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal.
All short screws were located lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding this risk entirely.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two short screws (SLS or SPS) provided >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness vs a single long screw (LLS) for SI joint stabilization.
  • No mechanical advantage was seen between the two short screw types (lag vs positional).
  • All short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding spinal impingement.
  • Ventral sacral foraminal impingement occurred in 3 short-screw cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS), all involving the caudal screw.
  • LLS group showed more abaxial displacement at osteotomy sites, suggesting inferior stabilization for concurrent pelvic fractures.
  • Short screw constructs had longer total screw length (48 mm) than LLS (40 mm), contributing to increased stiffness.
  • Positioning of caudal screw in a cranial/craniodorsal trajectory may help avoid nerve foraminal injury.
  • No significant difference in displacement at peak load among groups; stiffness and load capacity were the primary benefits.

Hanlon

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

2022-7-VS-hanlon-3

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

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 Sunlight 2022 et al., on Protein C monitoring, what was the average postoperative Protein C (PC) activity in dogs with excellent clinical outcomes?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dogs with excellent clinical status had the highest mean postoperative PC, specifically those with complete acute occlusion.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 96.3% ± 10.9%.
Dogs with excellent clinical status had the highest mean postoperative PC, specifically those with complete acute occlusion.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Postoperative Protein C (PC) activity increased in 78.7% of dogs, and was significantly higher in dogs with excellent clinical outcomes.
  • Complete acute shunt occlusion resulted in higher postoperative PC activity (96.3%) and better ultimate clinical outcomes than incomplete occlusion.
  • Preoperative PC was not predictive of clinical status, but postoperative PC was associated with improved outcomes.
  • Standard biochemical markers (HCT, MCV, ALB, BUN) also improved postoperatively, especially in dogs with excellent clinical outcomes.
  • Dogs requiring a second procedure had significantly lower postoperative PC (43.5%) than those not requiring further intervention (78.5%).
  • Repeat procedures improved PC and BUN values, with PC increasing significantly after second intervention (to 69.8%).
  • PC normalization (within reference interval) occurred in 87.5% of dogs with excellent clinical status, compared to only 12.5% in those with poor status.
  • Clinical outcome classification (excellent/fair/poor) correlated with biochemical normalization and lack of need for diet/medications.

Sunlight

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Protein C and comparative biochemical changes in dogs treated with percutaneous transvenous coil embolization of congenital intrahepatic portosystemic shunts

2022-1-VS-sunlight-1

Article Title: Protein C and comparative biochemical changes in dogs treated with percutaneous transvenous coil embolization of congenital intrahepatic portosystemic shunts

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 Farrell 2022 et al., on checklist reliability in OVH simulation, what percentage of checklist items were deemed essential by expert surgical educators?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Thirty-nine of 40 checklist items (98%) were validated by expert panel review.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 98%.
Thirty-nine of 40 checklist items (98%) were validated by expert panel review.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 39 of 40 checklist items for simulated OVH surgical assessment had good content validity (CVI = 0.81)
  • Only 1 of 6 items from the OSATS GRS (respect for tissue) met inclusion criteria (CVI = 0.80)
  • Checklist showed strong reliability (G-coefficient = 0.85) for moderate-stakes exams
  • Modified OSATS GRS showed acceptable reliability (G-coefficient = 0.79)
  • Two raters needed for acceptable reliability in high-stakes exams when using the checklist
  • Minimal interrater bias found; variance largely due to interaction among student, rater, and item
  • Digital recordings were a reliable method of evaluating surgical performance
  • Study supports using checklist over OSATS GRS for assessing preclinical students on simulated models

Farrell

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Evaluating validity evidence for 2 instruments developed to assess students' surgical skills in a simulated environment

2022-5-VS-farrell-4

Article Title: Evaluating validity evidence for 2 instruments developed to assess students' surgical skills in a simulated environment

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 Otero Balda 2025 et al., on Short-term outcomes after feline cPSS surgery, what was the survival rate in cats pretreated with levetiracetam following the LEV1 protocol?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cats in LEV1 group had a 100% 30-day survival rate, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 100.0%.
Cats in LEV1 group had a 100% 30-day survival rate, although the difference was not statistically significant.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 78% of cats that developed postattenuation neurologic signs (PANS) after congenital portosystemic shunt (cPSS) surgery survived to 30 days.
  • Postattenuation seizures (PAS) were associated with significantly decreased 30-day survival (50% vs. 78%; OR: 0.015, p = .005).
  • Treatment of PANS with propofol was a negative prognostic factor (OR: 0.112, p = .0008).
  • Generalized PAS accounted for most seizure cases and were more frequently fatal than focal or unknown-type seizures.
  • Pretreatment with levetiracetam (LEV1 protocol) showed a trend toward improved survival (100% vs. 60.6% in untreated cats), though not statistically significant (p = .06).
  • Shunt morphology, method of attenuation, and study period (early vs. late) were not significantly associated with 30-day survival.
  • Electrolyte, glucose, and ammonia abnormalities were not strongly linked to survival outcomes in this study.
  • Majority of PAS-related deaths were due to uncontrolled generalized seizures or euthanasia because of severity.

Otero Balda

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Prognostic factors for short‐term survival of cats that experienced postattenuation neurologic signs after surgical attenuation of single congenital portosystemic shunts

2025-5-VS-otero-5

Article Title: Prognostic factors for short‐term survival of cats that experienced postattenuation neurologic signs after surgical attenuation of single congenital portosystemic shunts

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 Israel 2022 et al., on cerclage wire in THR, which of the following statements about cerclage wire outcomes is CORRECT?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No wire-related complications or failures occurred in the study's 184 THRs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No complications were reported from cerclage wire use.
No wire-related complications or failures occurred in the study's 184 THRs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No proximal femoral fractures occurred in any of the 184 hips with cerclage wire placement
  • Cerclage wire was well tolerated, with no failures or complications related to the wire
  • Application of a single cerclage wire took <10 minutes, was cost-effective, and required minimal instrumentation
  • 3 postoperative complications (1 fissure, 2 fractures) occurred distal to the cerclage site, near the stem tip, requiring plate/screw fixation
  • All dogs returned to normal activity, and all owners were satisfied with the outcome
  • Cerclage placement location is critical—must be proximal to the lesser trochanter and close to the calcar to resist hoop strain
  • Biomechanical evidence supports that cerclage wires improve resistance to hoop strain and subsidence of cementless stems
  • Press-fit cementless stems may settle, but when supported by cerclage, this does not result in fractures even in undersized implants

Israel

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Outcome of canine cementless collared stem total hip replacement with proximal femoral periprosthetic cerclage application: 184 consecutive cases

2022-2-VS-israel-3

Article Title: Outcome of canine cementless collared stem total hip replacement with proximal femoral periprosthetic cerclage application: 184 consecutive 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 Geier 2022 et al., on smoke evacuation in TPLO, which group had the highest maximum particle concentration during surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Maximum particle concentration in the non–smoke-evacuator group was 62,450 ppc vs. 10,100 in the SE group.
Incorrect. The correct answer is NSE group (62,450 ppc).
Maximum particle concentration in the non–smoke-evacuator group was 62,450 ppc vs. 10,100 in the SE group.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Use of smoke evacuators reduced ultrafine particle concentrations by 56.4% during approach to the proximal tibia for TPLO in dogs.
  • Mean intraoperative particle concentrations were significantly higher in surgeries without smoke evacuation (1352 ppc vs. 763 ppc, P < .0001).
  • Maximum particle concentrations were six times higher without smoke evacuation (62,450 ppc vs. 10,100 ppc, P < .0001).
  • Particle counts increased above baseline regardless of evacuator use, confirming electrosurgery contributes substantially to airborne particles.
  • Surgeons noted reduced odor and health concerns when using the smoke evacuator, despite initial visibility limitations due to pencil attachment.
  • Standard surgical masks do not protect against ultrafine particles, underscoring the importance of smoke mitigation systems.
  • The smoke-evacuation unit did not eliminate all ultrafine particles, suggesting optimization (e.g., higher power setting) may be beneficial.
  • This is the first clinical veterinary study to measure surgical smoke reduction using evacuators during TPLO.

Geier

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

The effect of a smoke‐evacuation unit on ultrafine particle concentrations in the operating room during approach to the proximal tibia for tibial plateau-leveling osteotomy surgery in dogs

2022-5-VS-geier-3

Article Title: The effect of a smoke‐evacuation unit on ultrafine particle concentrations in the operating room during approach to the proximal tibia for tibial plateau-leveling osteotomy surgery 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Healing & Complications
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.