Quiz Question

In Simpson 2022 et al., on feline cholecystectomy outcomes, what was the most common surgical indication?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cholelithiasis was identified in 17 of 23 cats and was the leading reason for surgery.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cholelithiasis.
Cholelithiasis was identified in 17 of 23 cats and was the leading reason for surgery.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cholelithiasis was the most common indication for cholecystectomy in cats.
  • Perioperative complications were frequent, with intraoperative hypotension in all recorded cases and postoperative anemia in 14 cats.
  • Perioperative mortality was 21.7%, lower than historical rates for feline biliary surgery.
  • 78.3% of cats survived to discharge, and 83.3% of those lived >6 months; 44.4% survived >3 years.
  • Vomiting was the most common short- and long-term complication, though most cats were medically managed.
  • Concurrent EHBDO was not a contraindication provided CBD patency was restored.
  • Positive bacterial cultures were found in 15 cats, with E. coli and Enterococcus faecalis most common.
  • Owner-reported outcomes were excellent in all cats that survived long-term.

Simpson

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Cholecystectomy in 23 cats (2005‐2021)

2022-1-VS-simpson-1

Article Title: Cholecystectomy in 23 cats (2005‐2021)

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 Lhuillery 2022 et al., on GDV stabilization timing, which intraoperative finding had a high mortality rate regardless of timing group?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Partial gastrectomy was associated with poor outcomes in both immediate and delayed groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Gastric wall necrosis requiring partial gastrectomy.
Partial gastrectomy was associated with poor outcomes in both immediate and delayed groups.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Survival rates did not differ between immediate (90 min) and delayed (≥5 h) surgical stabilization groups at discharge or 1-month post-op (approx. 80% survival in both).
  • Hyperlactatemia at 24 hours post-fluid therapy was significantly associated with in-hospital and 1-month mortality (P = .01 and P = .02).
  • Persistent tachycardia during hospitalization was linked to increased 1-month mortality (P = .015).
  • Partial gastrectomy was required in ~6–10% of cases, with high associated mortality.
  • Preoperative stabilization protocols (trocarization, nasogastric tube) allowed safe surgical delays up to 13.7 hours without impacting survival.
  • Degree of gastric torsion differed between groups; more 0° torsions in delayed cases, potentially due to decompression-induced derotation.
  • No difference in post-op complications such as arrhythmias, hypotension, or AKI between groups.
  • More intra-anesthetic deaths occurred in immediate surgery group, highlighting importance of adequate pre-op stabilization.

Lhuillery

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Outcomes of dogs undergoing surgery for gastric dilatation volvulus after rapid versus prolonged medical stabilization

2022-5-VS-lhuillery-5

Article Title: Outcomes of dogs undergoing surgery for gastric dilatation volvulus after rapid versus prolonged medical stabilization

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 Billas 2022 et al., on SSI risk after limb amputation, which amputation indication significantly increased SSI odds compared to neoplasia?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Trauma had a 4.5x increased SSI risk compared to neoplasia (*P* = .003).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Trauma.
Trauma had a 4.5x increased SSI risk compared to neoplasia (*P* = .003).

🔍 Key Findings

  • 12.5% overall incidence of SSI after limb amputation, and 10.9% for clean procedures.
  • Bipolar vessel sealing device use for muscle transection significantly increased SSI risk (OR 2.5; P = .023).
  • Monopolar electrosurgery and sharp transection were not associated with increased SSI risk.
  • Non-clean wound classification increased SSI odds (OR 8.2; P = .003).
  • Amputation for infection (OR 5.7) or trauma (OR 4.5) significantly increased SSI risk compared to neoplasia.
  • Preoperative infections at distant sites did not significantly increase SSI risk.
  • Neither surgery/anesthesia duration, hypothermia, hypotension, nor skin closure method significantly affected SSI risk.
  • Study supports avoiding bipolar sealing devices for muscle transection in limb amputations to reduce SSI risk.

Billas

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection following canine limb amputation

2022-3-VS-billas-3

Article Title: Incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection following canine limb amputation

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 Bergen 2024 et al., on biliary stent use, what complication occurred only in cats long-term?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only cats developed ascending cholangiohepatitis during long-term follow-up.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ascending cholangiohepatitis.
Only cats developed ascending cholangiohepatitis during long-term follow-up.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Subjects: 11 animals (8 dogs, 3 cats)
  • Technique: Uncovered balloon-expandable metallic biliary stents (BEMBS)
  • Indications: Cholelithiasis, strictures, neoplasia, cholangiohepatitis, etc.
  • Success: Patency achieved in all animals surviving to discharge
  • Complications:
    • Short-term mortality: 2/11 (1 euthanized for SIRS, 1 unknown)
    • Long-term issues: cholangiohepatitis, choledocholithiasis, stent occlusion (in cats only)
  • Long-term patency:
    • Dogs: median 650.5 days
    • Cats: median 446 days
  • Stent removal possible even after >600 days in some cats
  • Clinical outcome: Viable alternative to plastic stents or cholecystoenterostomy

Bergen

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Clinical use of uncovered balloon‐expandable metallic biliary stents for treatment of extrahepatic biliary tract obstructions in cats and dogs: 11 cases (2012–2022)

2024-2-VS-bergen-4

Article Title: Clinical use of uncovered balloon‐expandable metallic biliary stents for treatment of extrahepatic biliary tract obstructions in cats and dogs: 11 cases (2012–2022)

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 Hoenecke 2025 et al., on radiographic opacity in patella luxation, which variable was found to significantly increase the likelihood of radiographic soft tissue opacity in the stifle?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Weight was significantly associated with increased opacity, with each 1 kg increase raising odds by 10%.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Weight.
Weight was significantly associated with increased opacity, with each 1 kg increase raising odds by 10%.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 65% of stifles with patella luxation and intact CCLs had increased radiographic soft tissue opacity
  • Weight and radiographic OA were significantly associated with increased opacity (p = .0029 and p = .0143)
  • Each 1 kg increase in weight increased the odds of opacity by 10%
  • Grade of patella luxation, age, and muscle atrophy were not significantly associated with increased opacity
  • 19% of dogs with long-term follow-up developed a CCL rupture post-patella surgery, 50% of those had opacity at initial presentation
  • Radiographic opacity alone should not be interpreted as CCL disease in dogs with patella luxation
  • Radiographic findings likely represent effusion or synovial hyperplasia, not CCL pathology
  • Arthrotomy was used to confirm CCL integrity at surgery, but arthroscopy could provide better sensitivity

Hoenecke

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Increased radiographic stifle soft tissue opacity in dogs with patella luxation

2025-7-VS-hoenecke-1

Article Title: Increased radiographic stifle soft tissue opacity in dogs with patella 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 Rocheleau 2025 et al., on infected total hip replacements, which factor most influenced success of arthroscopic curative treatment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cases with short-duration infections (CI) had higher resolution rates, consistent with human PJI data.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Infection duration and chronicity.
Cases with short-duration infections (CI) had higher resolution rates, consistent with human PJI data.

🔍 Key Findings

Study Design: Case series of 8 dogs with confirmed or suspected PJI after total hip replacement (THR)
Dogs were categorized into:

  • Curative intent (CI) group (n=5): short-duration infections, implant retention attempted
  • Non-curative intent (NCI) group (n=3): chronic infections, implants scheduled for removal or revision

Success Rate: 7 of 8 dogs had infection resolution, including 4 of 5 in the CI group
Sampling sensitivity:

  • Arthroscopic culture success was 80% in the CI group but only 33% in the NCI group
  • All explanted implants from NCI group yielded positive cultures

Common isolates: Staphylococcus pseudointermedius (including MRSP), S. epidermidis, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and E. coli
Ancillary treatments included:

  • Partial synovectomy, high-volume lavage (5–10 L), biofilm-depleting lavage, and/or amikacin-impregnated calcium sulfate beads

Mean follow-up: >1 year (mean 812 days); no signs of recurrence in successfully treated cases
Conclusions: Arthroscopic management of THR infections is feasible and effective in appropriately selected dogs. Success aligns with human literature when infection type is favorable (Type 1, 3, 4). Sensitivity of arthroscopic culture is higher in early/acute infections.

Rocheleau

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Arthroscopic sampling, diagnosis and treatment of infected total hip replacements in dogs: Eight cases

2025-4-VS-rocheleau-5

Article Title: Arthroscopic sampling, diagnosis and treatment of infected total hip replacements in dogs: Eight 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 Marchionatti 2022 et al., on antiseptic efficacy comparison, which of the following best reflects the conclusion?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study concluded both protocols were comparable for SSI prevention and bacterial reduction:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are both effective, with no clear superiority.
The study concluded both protocols were comparable for SSI prevention and bacterial reduction:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings

  • Chlorhexidine-based asepsis protocols were comparable to povidone-iodine for reducing surgical site infection (SSI) rates in veterinary surgery.
  • No significant difference in skin bacterial colonization was observed between the two antiseptics, at both immediate and delayed timepoints.
  • Chlorhexidine-alcohol protocols showed a non-significant trend toward improved bacterial reduction in some studies, though inconsistent across all studies.
  • Use of neutralizing agents was inconsistent, which may have led to overestimation of antiseptic efficacy in several studies.
  • Formulations and concentrations varied widely (e.g., chlorhexidine 0.5–4%, povidone-iodine 0.7–1%), contributing to heterogeneity and limiting definitive conclusions.
  • Only a minority of studies reported using CDC criteria for SSI diagnosis, affecting the reliability of infection outcomes.
  • Risk of bias was high or unclear in multiple domains across all included studies, limiting overall confidence in conclusions.
  • Meta-analysis confirmed no statistically significant superiority of either protocol for SSI prevention or skin bacterial reduction.

Marchionatti

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine in veterinary surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022-5-VS-marchionatti-5

Article Title: Preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine in veterinary surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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 Galliano 2022 et al., on vascular access ports, what was one potential benefit of placing the SVAP during limb amputation compared to a separate jugular procedure?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Using the same surgical field avoids a second surgical site, potentially reducing total procedure time.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Shorter surgical time.
Using the same surgical field avoids a second surgical site, potentially reducing total procedure time.

🔍 Key Findings

  • SVAPs placed in axillary (aSVAP) or femoral/external iliac veins (fSVAP) during limb amputation remained functional in 92.3% and 100% of cases, respectively.
  • Complication rates were lower in aSVAP (23.1%) and fSVAP (0%) compared to jSVAP (47.4%), although not statistically significant (P = .12).
  • No catastrophic complications occurred with aSVAP or fSVAP; 2 deaths occurred with jSVAP due to port-related issues.
  • Infection-related port removal was needed in 1 aSVAP (7.7%) and 2 jSVAPs (10.5%) — no removals were required in fSVAPs.
  • Tip placement of the catheter (e.g., right atrium vs. vena cava) did not correlate with complications (P = .66).
  • Shorter surgical time likely with aSVAP/fSVAP as they use the same surgical field as the limb amputation.
  • Survival time median was similar across groups (jSVAP: 177 days, aSVAP: 125 days, fSVAP: 122 days).
  • SVAP implantation during limb amputation offers a practical and safe alternative to separate jugular placement.

Galliano

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Subcutaneous vascular access port implantation in the axillary or femoral/external iliac vein at the time of full limb amputation in dogs

2022-7-VS-galliano-5

Article Title: Subcutaneous vascular access port implantation in the axillary or femoral/external iliac vein at the time of full limb amputation 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 Berthomé 2025 et al., on prophylactic fenestration in cervical IVDE, what was the recurrence rate in the prophylactic fenestration (PF) group?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. None of the dogs in the PF group had a recurrence, suggesting a protective effect.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0%.
None of the dogs in the PF group had a recurrence, suggesting a protective effect.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Prophylactic fenestration (PF) significantly reduced recurrence of cervical intervertebral disc extrusion (0% vs. 37.8%, p < .001).
  • Surgery time was longer with PF (median 182 vs. 110 min, p = .017), but no difference in perioperative complication rates (PF 16.7%, non-PF 18.9%; p = .838).
  • 25% overall recurrence rate, but all recurrences occurred in the non-PF group.
  • Medical management was effective in 92.9% of recurrence cases.
  • Most PF sites targeted adjacent discs; 88.9% were at adjacent levels, which are common recurrence sites.
  • Neurologic outcomes were similar between PF and non-PF dogs post-surgery and at follow-up.
  • Fenestration technique (blade vs. burr) not shown to affect outcome but contributed to extended surgical time.
  • No major complications or deaths linked directly to PF in initial surgeries.

Berthomé

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Recurrence of cervical intervertebral disc extrusion in 55 dogs after surgical decompression with or without prophylactic fenestration

2025-6-VS-berthome-2

Article Title: Recurrence of cervical intervertebral disc extrusion in 55 dogs after surgical decompression with or without prophylactic fenestration

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 Muroi 2024 et al., on radius plate stress effects, what was the significant effect of locking plate (LP) placement on cranial cortical bone stress?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FEA showed LP placement reduced maximum principal (tensile) stress significantly on the cranial cortex.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It significantly decreased tensile (maximum principal) stress.
FEA showed LP placement reduced maximum principal (tensile) stress significantly on the cranial cortex.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Finite element analysis compared intact radii vs. locking plates placed 1 mm or 3 mm above the bone
  • LP placement significantly reduced tensile (maximum principal) stress on cranial cortex, potentially causing implant-induced osteoporosis
  • Shell element findings:
    • Max principal stress significantly lower in both LP groups vs. intact (p < 0.05)
  • Solid element findings:
    • Equivalent stress higher and max principal stress lower in LP groups
  • Implication: Tension reduction may impair bone remodeling; implant design and placement height affect stress environment

Muroi

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Stress Changes in the Canine Radius after Locking Plate Fixation Using Finite Element Analysis

2024-3-VCOT-muroi-1

Article Title: Stress Changes in the Canine Radius after Locking Plate Fixation Using Finite Element Analysis

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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Infection
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.