Quiz Question

In De Moya 2023 et al., on femoral pinning outcomes, which finding was associated with reduced success of FGPP?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Fractures with mild displacement had better outcomes and higher success with closed reduction.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Moderate to severe fracture displacement.
Fractures with mild displacement had better outcomes and higher success with closed reduction.

🔍 Key Findings

  • FGPP (fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous pinning) resulted in successful healing in 10/13 fractures, with good limb function.
  • Complications occurred in 5 of 11 cases, including intra-articular implants, malunion, implant failure/nonunion, and implant migration.
  • Cases with delayed surgery (>15 days) or radiographic remodeling were more likely to experience major complications.
  • Most fractures (10/13) were classified as Salter-Harris type I with mild displacement.
  • Median surgical time was 60 minutes, and no conversions to open surgery were needed.
  • Postoperative femoral neck resorption was minimal, suggesting possible benefits of the minimally invasive approach for preserving vascular supply.
  • One intra-articular pin led to progressive joint disease and required femoral head ostectomy.
  • FGPP appears best suited for acute, minimally displaced fractures in young dogs (<8 months) with planned elective explant to avoid growth disturbance.

De Moya

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Closed reduction and fluoroscopic‐guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 dogs

2023-6-VS-demoya-3

Article Title: Closed reduction and fluoroscopic‐guided percutaneous pinning of femoral capital physeal or neck fractures: Thirteen fractures in 11 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 McClean 2025 et al., on shoulder arthrocentesis techniques, which of the following best summarizes the accuracy comparison between SA and ST techniques?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. SA was 50% accurate; ST was 44% — not statistically different (p = .8).
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant difference in accuracy.
SA was 50% accurate; ST was 44% — not statistically different (p = .8).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Study Type: Cadaveric study using 36 paired canine shoulders (n = 18 per group: Subacromial [SA] and Supratubercular [ST])
  • Survey Results: 75% of clinicians preferred SA technique; 25% used ST
Accuracy Outcomes:
  • Complete accuracy: 50% (SA), 44% (ST) — no significant difference (p = .8)
  • Partial accuracy: 39% (SA), 50% (ST)
  • Complete miss: 11% (SA), 5.6% (ST)
Safety Outcomes (India Ink Assay for Iatrogenic Articular Cartilage Injury [IACI]):
  • Incidence of IACI:
    • SA: 50% (9/18 shoulders)
    • ST: 11% (2/18 shoulders) → statistically significant (p = .007)
  • Lesion depth: All ST lesions were partial-thickness; SA group had one full-thickness lesion (p = .027)
  • Location: Lesions found on glenoid and humeral head with even distribution in SA; only one each in ST
Clinical Implications:
  • Landmark-guided injections were ≤50% completely accurate, even by an experienced operator.
  • ST technique is safer with lower risk of cartilage damage, despite similar accuracy.
  • Findings support considering image-guided techniques to improve both safety and accuracy in clinical settings.

Mcclean

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Accuracy and safety of two landmark‐guided techniques for arthrocentesis and intra‐articular injection of the shoulder in dogs

2025-4-VS-mcclean-3

Article Title: Accuracy and safety of two landmark‐guided techniques for arthrocentesis and intra‐articular injection of the shoulder 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 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 Nagahiro 2023 et al., on quadriceps-femoral mismatch, which variables were significantly associated with a decreased QML/FL in the final regression model?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Multivariate regression revealed QML/FL decreased with increased femoral torsion angle (FTA) and aLDFA, but increased with age.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Age, FTA, aLDFA.
Multivariate regression revealed QML/FL decreased with increased femoral torsion angle (FTA) and aLDFA, but increased with age.

🔍 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-3

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 Miyagi 2025 et al., on endoscopic laser sphincterotomy, what was the outcome of the two cases with lateral perforation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The two perforations were not visible on post-dissection leak testing and did not cause saline escape.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No saline egress or visible damage was detected.
The two perforations were not visible on post-dissection leak testing and did not cause saline escape.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Endoscopic-assisted retrograde catheterization (EARC) and laser sphincterotomy were successful in 18/18 cadavers, demonstrating technical feasibility.
  • Intramural common bile duct (ICBD) length ranged from 10 to 21 mm (mean 15.8 mm), with no correlation to body weight (r = 0.06, p = .79).
  • Transition from ICBD to extramural duct was accurately identified endoscopically in 88% (16/18); transition was heralded by separation of the submucosal layer.
  • Partial lateral perforations occurred in 2/18 dogs, only during early learning phase; no leakage was found on open dissection.
  • Laser sphincterotomy preserved the pancreatic duct orifice, aided by protective catheter positioning.
  • Compared to open duodenotomy, this technique allows for a smaller incision and less manipulation of the pancreas, which may reduce morbidity.
  • No adverse events such as intra-abdominal saline egress or full-thickness perforation occurred, and the technique allowed safe access up to 10 mm from the MDP.
  • Cadaveric limitations included absence of biliary pathology and inability to evaluate live complications, but the technique shows promise for future live animal trials.

Miyagi

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Endoscopic‐assisted laser sphincterotomy of the intramural common bile duct: A cadaveric pilot study

2025-5-VS-miyagi-4

Article Title: Endoscopic‐assisted laser sphincterotomy of the intramural common bile duct: A cadaveric pilot 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 Davey 2024 et al., on modified closed anal sacculectomy, how was AGASACA most frequently diagnosed in asymptomatic dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 57.4% of dogs had no signs, and AGASACA was identified on digital rectal examination.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Palpation during routine rectal exam.
57.4% of dogs had no signs, and AGASACA was identified on digital rectal examination.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Modified closed anal sacculectomy resulted in a local recurrence rate of only 2.2%, substantially lower than prior reports (18–50%).
  • Postoperative complications occurred in 31.9% of dogs; most (93%) were minor, with dehiscence being the most common.
  • Mean survival time in deceased dogs was 521 days; median was 388 days.
  • Surgical technique included complete en bloc excision of the sac and duct with sphincter reconstruction, aiming to reduce seeding risk.
  • Only one major complication resulted in euthanasia due to infection and dehiscence.
  • Histologic margins were complete in 44.7% of dogs; lymphatic invasion was present in 31.9%, and vascular in 8.5%.
  • Adjunctive chemotherapy was administered in 34% of dogs (mostly carboplatin); not standardized due to retrospective design.
  • Routine rectal exam was key to diagnosis in 57.4% of dogs with no clinical signs, underscoring the importance of screening.

Davey

Veterinary Surgery

6

2024

Outcomes of dogs with apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma treated via modified closed anal sacculectomy (2015–2022)

2024-6-VS-davey-5

Article Title: Outcomes of dogs with apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma treated via modified closed anal sacculectomy (2015–2022)

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 de la Oliva 2024 et al., what was the prevalence of contralateral HIF in French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fracture?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Contralateral intracondylar fissure was identified in 36 out of 89 French Bulldogs (40.4%):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 40.4%.
Contralateral intracondylar fissure was identified in 36 out of 89 French Bulldogs (40.4%):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 89 French Bulldogs with HCF; 40.4% (36/89) had contralateral HIF
  • Prophylactic transcondylar screws placed in 20/36 HIF; no complications in these
  • Complication rate for HCF repair = 13.4% (6.7% minor, 6.7% major)
  • Most complications occurred with Kirschner wire fixation
  • Short-term outcome: Bone healing observed in all, but 14/45 had persistent intracondylar gap
  • Long-term outcomes (n=27):
    • Excellent = 66.7%
    • Good = 29.6%
    • Fair = 3.7%
  • Complication-free dogs significantly more likely to have excellent/good outcomes (p = 0.007)

Delaoliva

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

2024-3-VCOT-delaoliva-1

Article Title: Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

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 Husi 2023 et al., on TPLO vs TPLO-IB biomechanics, what was the intraobserver reliability for the eTPT and iTPT tests after TPLO and TPLO-IB?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Intraobserver reliability was excellent with ICCs of 0.93 (eTPT) and 0.91 (iTPT).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Excellent.
Intraobserver reliability was excellent with ICCs of 0.93 (eTPT) and 0.91 (iTPT).

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPLO alone failed to neutralize rotational instability under tibial pivot compression (TPT), despite a negative TCT.
  • TPLO combined with lateral augmentation (TPLO-IB) restored both craniocaudal and rotational stability to near-intact levels.
  • Cranial tibial translation was 6× greater after TPLO vs intact stifles when tested with TPT (p < .001).
  • No significant difference in cranial tibial translation or internal rotation between intact stifles and TPLO-IB group during TCT, eTPT, or iTPT.
  • TPLO-IB did not overconstrain the stifle, avoiding excessive external rotation.
  • External tibial rotation (eTPT) was more sensitive than TCT in detecting persistent instability after TPLO.
  • Excellent intraobserver reliability for both eTPT and iTPT (ICC > 0.9).
  • Study supports intraoperative use of TPT to identify cases needing additional rotational stabilization.

Husi

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical study

2023-5-VS-husi-5

Article Title: Comparative kinetic and kinematic evaluation of TPLO and TPLO combined with extra-articular lateral augmentation: A biomechanical 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 Neal 2023 et al., on transcondylar screw placement, what was the main finding comparing trajectory angle between aiming device and fluoroscopy in right thoracic limbs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Aiming device had significantly less trajectory deviation in right limbs (1.9° vs 3.4°, p = .0128).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Aiming device produced less deviation than fluoroscopy.
Aiming device had significantly less trajectory deviation in right limbs (1.9° vs 3.4°, p = .0128).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Aiming device provided comparable trajectory accuracy to fluoroscopy, especially in right limbs (1.9° vs. 3.4°, p = .0128).
  • Eccentricity (deviation from condylar center) was lower with fluoroscopy (3.1 mm vs 4.2 mm, p = .0017), making fluoroscopy more precise.
  • Odds of joint infringement were 8× higher with the aiming device, though not statistically significant (p = .0575).
  • Residents had greater screw trajectory deviation than diplomates (p = .0366), highlighting impact of experience.
  • Aiming device procedures took less time than fluoroscopy in some scenarios, particularly for right limbs with right-handed surgeons.
  • Fluoroscopic procedures had more pin/drill attempts, increasing risk of glove puncture and potential aseptic breaks.
  • Mean deviation angles in both groups (<3.5°) were within acceptable range to avoid intracondylar fracture gap.
  • Cadaver model used large-breed, healthy adult dogs, not small-breed immature dogs, limiting generalizability.

Neal

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

The effect of an aiming device on the accuracy of humeral transcondylar screw placement

2023-4-VS-neal-1

Article Title: The effect of an aiming device on the accuracy of humeral transcondylar screw placement

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 was the sensitivity of CT for intramural ectopic ureters?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CT sensitivity for intramural ectopic ureters was 65%, showing moderate detection ability.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 65%.
CT sensitivity for intramural ectopic ureters was 65%, showing moderate detection ability.

🔍 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-2

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: 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.