Quiz Question

In Alvarez 2022 et al., on rehabilitation modalities, what was the outcome of the single study on low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The LIPUS study (Kieves 2018) showed no significant improvement in radiographic healing or TPI outcomes after TPLO.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It had no significant effect on healing or function.
The LIPUS study (Kieves 2018) showed no significant improvement in radiographic healing or TPI outcomes after TPLO.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Exercise-based rehabilitation showed benefits in 6 of 7 studies, including increased peak vertical force (PVF) and reduced lameness, though most had high risk of bias (RoB).
  • Cold compression therapy (CCT) had 2 high-quality (Level II, low RoB) studies showing improvements in pain scores, range of motion, and swelling, supporting its clinical use.
  • Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) was supported by 2 Level II studies; only one had low RoB, showing short-term benefits in patellar ligament thickness and PVF, but no long-term benefit on bone healing.
  • Photobiomodulation (PBM) had mixed results across 3 Level II studies (all low RoB); only 1 showed positive impact on PVF, limiting its recommendation.
  • Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) showed no significant impact on gait analysis or bone healing in a Level II, low RoB study.
  • Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) improved lameness and thigh circumference in one Level III study, but had high-moderate RoB and involved experimentally-induced CCL rupture, limiting clinical relevance.
  • No modality beyond exercise and CCT had consistent or strong evidence for efficacy in post-TPLO or extracapsular repair rehabilitation.
  • The absence of standardized protocols, small sample sizes, and inconsistent outcome measures limited the generalizability of findings.

Alvarez

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Systematic review of postoperative rehabilitation interventions after cranial cruciate ligament surgery in dogs

2022-2-VS-alvarez-5

Article Title: Systematic review of postoperative rehabilitation interventions after cranial cruciate ligament 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?

In Knudsen 2024 et al., on CTA diagnostic accuracy, what was the combined sensitivity and specificity range in the second reading?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The article reported sums of sensitivity and specificity of approximately 1.8 in the second reading, indicating clinically useful performance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1.6–1.9.
The article reported sums of sensitivity and specificity of approximately 1.8 in the second reading, indicating clinically useful performance.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Study Design: Prospective case series of 52 scans from 44 dogs with CCL injury.
  • Main Technique: 16-slice CTA; evaluated by 3 observers with varying experience; validated against surgical mini-medial arthrotomy findings.
  • Diagnostic Metrics (Reading 2):
    • Sensitivity: 1.00 (Observers 1 & 2), 0.93 (Observer 3)
    • Specificity: 0.78–0.91
    • Positive Likelihood Ratio: Up to 10.71
    • Negative Likelihood Ratio: As low as 0.08
    • Accuracy: 90%+ for all in Reading 2
  • Observer Effect: Significant improvement between first and second reading for less experienced observers (p < 0.05); learning curve evident.
  • Meniscal lesions found:
    • 9/12 in suspected late meniscal injury cases
    • 19/40 in newly diagnosed CCL cases
    • Most common = bucket handle tears
  • Conclusion: Multidetector CTA is a clinically useful, non-invasive tool for identifying medial meniscal lesions in dogs with CCL disease.

Knudsen

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

2024-1-VS-knudsen-1

Article Title: Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

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 Jones 2024 et al., on elbow OA cysts, what best describes the presence of SBCs in radiographic OA grade 0 elbows?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. SBCs were absent in elbows without radiographic signs of OA (grade 0).
Incorrect. The correct answer is No SBCs were detected.
SBCs were absent in elbows without radiographic signs of OA (grade 0).

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Sample: 38 Labrador Retrievers (76 elbows)
  • SBCs (subchondral bone cysts):
    • Not found in elbows without OA
  • Increased number and size with OA severity:
    • Grade 1: median 3 SBCs
    • Grade 2: 9 SBCs
    • Grade 3: 20 SBCs (p < .001)
    • Larger SBCs in more severe OA (OR = 1.056, p = .012)
  • Locations: 62% humerus, 28% ulna, 10% radius
  • Sex and Age Effects:
    • Older dogs had larger SBCs (p = .013)
    • Female dogs had smaller SBCs (p = .002)
    • SBC number unrelated to age or sex

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Evaluation of subchondral bone cysts in canine elbows with radiographic osteoarthritis secondary to elbow dysplasia

2024-2-VS-jones-3

Article Title: Evaluation of subchondral bone cysts in canine elbows with radiographic osteoarthritis secondary to elbow dysplasia

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 İnal 2025 et al., on feline high-rise trauma, which surface type was associated with significantly higher odds of injury?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cats falling on hard (concrete) surfaces had 7.98× greater odds of injury than those landing on soft surfaces
Incorrect. The correct answer is Concrete.
Cats falling on hard (concrete) surfaces had 7.98× greater odds of injury than those landing on soft surfaces

🔍 Key Findings

Sample: 373 cats with high-rise syndrome (HRS) from 2017–2020.
ATTS was the only significant predictor of survival (p < 0.001); each point increase decreased survival odds (OR = 0.46).
AUC for ATTS ROC curve: 0.857 (95% CI: 0.788–0.926).
Floor height, lesion type, and ground surface were not significantly associated with survival.
Odds of injury were 7.98× higher when landing on hard vs. soft surface (p < 0.001).
16.96× increased injury risk from the fourth vs. third floor (p = 0.008).
Cats with ATTS ≥7 had 62% mortality; median ATTS increased with floor height (r = 0.244, p < 0.001).
Thoracic and vertebral trauma were most common causes of death.
Only 32% of cats had the “classic” HRS triad (pneumothorax, epistaxis, hard palate fracture).

Inal

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2025

Survival Rate of High-Rise Syndrome Cases Using Animal Trauma Triage Score in Cats

2025-1-VC-inal-4

Article Title: Survival Rate of High-Rise Syndrome Cases Using Animal Trauma Triage Score in Cats

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 Kang 2022 et al., on 3D scaffold reconstruction, what was the Hounsfield Unit (HU) measurement trend in the scaffold area over time?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. HU values rose over time, indicating progressive tissue ingrowth (though not full bone regeneration).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased from 20.4 to ~98.
HU values rose over time, indicating progressive tissue ingrowth (though not full bone regeneration).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Patient-specific 3D-printed PCL/β-TCP scaffold enabled successful zygomatic arch reconstruction in a dog.
  • Complete surgical resection of a zygomatic parosteal osteosarcoma was achieved, with a 0.3 mm histologically clean margin.
  • Post-op imaging showed progressive tissue ingrowth into the scaffold, with Hounsfield Units increasing from 20.4 to 97.8 over 10 months.
  • No complications (e.g., infection, displacement) or tumor recurrence were noted at 16-month follow-up.
  • Use of a patient-specific osteotomy guide improved anatomical fit and facilitated precise excision and implant placement.
  • Facial symmetry and orbital stability were maintained throughout follow-up.
  • The scaffold remained structurally stable despite limited bone regeneration, suggesting connective tissue filled the defect.
  • Topical mitomycin C was applied intraoperatively for possible anti-neoplastic effect, but efficacy remains unclear.

Kang

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Zygomatic arch reconstruction with a patient-specific polycaprolactone beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold after parosteal osteosarcoma resection in a dog

2022-8-VS-kang-4

Article Title: Zygomatic arch reconstruction with a patient-specific polycaprolactone beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold after parosteal osteosarcoma resection 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 Evers 2023 et al., on needle arthroscopy, what was the reported sensitivity for detecting medial meniscal tears?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Needle arthroscopy had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity using standard arthroscopy as the reference.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 95%.
Needle arthroscopy had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity using standard arthroscopy as the reference.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Needle arthroscopy (NA) had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting medial meniscal tears using standard arthroscopy (SA) as the reference.
  • NA correctly identified meniscal status in 25/26 dogs, missing only one stable nondisplaced tear.
  • NA took less time than SA: 8 ± 3 min vs. 15 ± 9 min (P = .0041).
  • Visibility scores were significantly lower with NA than SA for all meniscal horns (medial and lateral) .
  • Probing difficulty was greater with NA, especially for the lateral meniscus (P = .0017).
  • NA caused no measurable morbidity: lameness scores were unchanged before and after the procedure (P = .25).
  • NA was possible in sedated dogs, though 10/26 required additional anesthesia due to delays.
  • NA missed 1 lateral tear, likely due to reduced access and lack of shaving compared to SA.

Evers

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Accuracy of needle arthroscopy for the diagnosis of medial meniscal tears in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture

2023-7-VS-evers-1

Article Title: Accuracy of needle arthroscopy for the diagnosis of medial meniscal tears in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture

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 Mihara 2024 et al., on mitral valve repair in dogs, what was the postoperative change in the LA:Ao ratio?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The LA:Ao ratio significantly dropped post-op, indicating reduced volume overload.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Decreased from 2.2 to 1.2.
The LA:Ao ratio significantly dropped post-op, indicating reduced volume overload.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Mitral valve plasty (MVP) in dogs with MMVD significantly reduced regurgitant volume and fraction, and normalized LA:Ao ratio, indicating reversal of volume overload.
  • MVP altered mitral valve geometry, with reduced annular dimensions and increased coaptation length, enhancing valve competence.
  • Postoperative LA:Ao ratio dropped from 2.2 to 1.2, consistent with improved left atrial pressure and size.
  • Forward stroke volume index and cardiac index increased at 3 months, reflecting improved hemodynamic function despite reduced fractional shortening.
  • Three dogs (3.9%) died postoperatively, highlighting a 96.1% survival rate within 3 months.
  • The repair technique involved artificial chordal replacement and annuloplasty; no cleft closure or leaflet suturing was used.
  • Color Doppler echocardiography confirmed substantial reduction in mitral regurgitation postoperatively in most dogs.

Mihara

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Effects of mitral valve repair on valvular geometry and hemodynamics in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease

2024-3-VS-mihara-1

Article Title: Effects of mitral valve repair on valvular geometry and hemodynamics in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease

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 Nagahiro 2023 et al., on quadriceps-femoral mismatch, what was the primary clinical implication of a reduced QML/FL ratio in dogs with MPL?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A low QML/FL may indicate the need to shorten the femur surgically to match quadriceps tension and improve patellar alignment.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It suggests a candidate for femoral shortening ostectomy.
A low QML/FL may indicate the need to shorten the femur surgically to match quadriceps tension and improve patellar alignment.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Quadriceps muscle length/femoral length ratio (QML/FL) was significantly lower in dogs with grade IV MPL than grades I–III (p ≤ .002).
  • Shortened QML was associated with increased femoral torsion angle (FTA) and increased aLDFA, indicating correlation with femoral deformity.
  • QML/FL increased with age, possibly due to muscular development or reduced deformity in older dogs (p = .004).
  • Grade IV MPL dogs had QML/FL < 0.87, the lower normal limit based on healthy beagles, suggesting clinically significant muscle shortening.
  • PLL/PL ratio (used to diagnose patella alta) was not associated with QML/FL or MPL severity in small breeds.
  • QML/FL can help preoperatively identify candidates for femoral shortening ostectomy, improving femoropatellar alignment.
  • Multivariate regression model confirmed QML/FL is independently influenced by age, FTA, and aLDFA (R² = 0.45).
  • CT-based 3D measurements enabled objective, noninvasive quantification of femoral and muscle alignment parameters.

Nagahiro

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

Evaluation of the quadriceps muscle length to femoral length ratio in small breed dogs with medial patellar luxation

2023-4-VS-nagahiro-2

Article Title: Evaluation of the quadriceps muscle length to femoral length ratio in small breed dogs with medial patellar luxation

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 Guevara 2024 et al., on implant placement accuracy, which vertebra had the lowest odds of acceptable pin placement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. T10 had the lowest OR for success (0.10), likely due to anatomical and guide design complexity.
Incorrect. The correct answer is T10.
T10 had the lowest OR for success (0.10), likely due to anatomical and guide design complexity.

🔍 Key Findings:

  • Sample: 24 canine cadavers, 477 total pins across 240 vertebrae.
  • Technique Comparison: 3D printed guides (3DPG) vs freehand (FH).
  • Acceptable Placement Rates: 3DPG = 87.5%, FH = 69.8% (p < .0001).
  • Odds Ratio for FH: 0.28 (95% CI 0.16–0.47), significantly less likely to yield acceptable placement.
  • Worst Accuracy Locations: T10 (OR 0.10), T11 (OR 0.35).
  • Surgeon Impact: Surgeon 2 outperformed others (OR 9.61, p = .001).
  • Modified Zdichavsky Classification used to score implant accuracy (Grades I–IIIb).
  • Primary Benefit of 3DPG: Increased safety and precision, regardless of surgeon experience.

Guevara

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

2024-2-VS-guevara-3

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of pin placement with patient-specific drill guides or freehand technique in canine cadaveric spines

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 Moreira 2024 et al., on predictive equations for TPA correction, what was the purpose of the generated corrective equations?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Equations allowed precise planning by adjusting for TLA shift and preoperative TPA.
Incorrect. The correct answer is To select wedge angle achieving 5° TPA while accounting for TLA shift.
Equations allowed precise planning by adjusting for TLA shift and preoperative TPA.

🔍 Key Findings

  • A linear relationship was observed between wedge angle and tibial plateau angle (TPA) correction across all four CCWO techniques.
  • All techniques produced predictable TPA corrections using linear regression-derived equations, allowing wedge angle extrapolation to achieve a target postoperative TPA of 5°.
  • TLA shift (tibial long axis) increased with wedge angle and influenced final TPA; greatest in Frederick & Cross method.
  • Tibial shortening (mTL%) varied by technique, being most severe (up to 40.9%) in traditional Slocum & Devine CCWO and least in newer techniques (7.5–12%).
  • The Oxley mCCWO technique showed lower TLA shift compared to the Frederick & Cross and Christ techniques, though similar to Slocum & Devine; tibial shortening was more pronounced than other modified techniques at wedge angles ≤40°.
  • Techniques varied in craniocaudal translation and wedge apex positioning, influencing planning accuracy and mechanical axis alignment.
  • The corrective wedge angle equations reliably predicted TPA within 4–6° across varied tibial conformations.
  • The study supports equation-based planning over static TPA–5° subtraction to reduce risk of under- or over-correction.

Moreira

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Predicting tibial plateau angles following four different types of cranial closing wedge ostectomy

2024-8-VS-moreira-4

Article Title: Predicting tibial plateau angles following four different types of cranial closing wedge ostectomy

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: Imaging & Decision-Making
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.