Quiz Question

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 Devriendt 2022 et al., on EHPSS blood testing, which single test had the highest **specificity** for confirming shunt closure after surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FA had 100% specificity, making it the most specific single test to confirm shunt closure.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Fasting ammonia (FA).
FA had 100% specificity, making it the most specific single test to confirm shunt closure.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fasting ammonia (FA) was the most specific test (100%) for confirming EHPSS closure postoperatively.
  • Serum hyaluronic acid (SHA) and MEGX at 15 minutes post-lidocaine were the most sensitive tests (96.9% and 96.2%, respectively).
  • SHA combined with MEGX T15, or with FA or postprandial serum bile acids (SBA), provided 100% sensitivity with good specificity (72.4–82.8%).
  • SHA levels remained elevated in all dogs with persistent shunting, even when other tests were normal.
  • Paired SBA had moderate sensitivity (90%) and variable specificity (89%).
  • The L/MEGX test at 30 min was less useful than at 15 min for assessing closure.
  • Traditional SBA testing showed reduced utility postoperatively; normal values did not rule out persistent shunting.
  • Blood tests improved when combined, but imaging remains essential to definitively confirm EHPSS closure.

Devriendt

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Evaluation of different blood tests in dogs with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts to assess shunt closure after surgical treatment

2022-7-VS-devriendt-1

Article Title: Evaluation of different blood tests in dogs with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts to assess shunt closure after surgical treatment

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 O'Marra 2026 et al., on perioperative septic peritonitis, which of the following is a recommended strategy to mitigate intra-abdominal hypertension in at-risk veterinary patients?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. IAH can compromise healing and perfusion. Recommended strategies include decompression techniques, sedation, and open abdomen management.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Open abdomen management.
IAH can compromise healing and perfusion. Recommended strategies include decompression techniques, sedation, and open abdomen management.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Early enteral nutrition (<24–48 hrs) is associated with improved survival and reduced hospitalization in dogs with septic peritonitis.
  • Appropriate empirical antimicrobials improve survival in cats, but data are mixed in dogs.
  • Recurrent septic peritonitis (RecSP) has poor survival (0%–43.9%); most common cause is gastrointestinal dehiscence.
  • Intraoperative hypotension and preoperative hypoalbuminemia may increase dehiscence risk, though findings are inconsistent.
  • Lidocaine CRI during surgery improves survival over opioids alone in dogs.
  • Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is not recommended due to risks of coagulopathy and kidney injury; albumin use is controversial.
  • Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) is under-recognized but contributes to mortality; IAP monitoring should be considered.
  • Diagnostic tests (effusion lactate, glucose, cytology) are unreliable for detecting RecSP; clinical judgment and ultrasound are advised.

O'Marra

Veterinary Surgery

1

2026

Perioperative management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review

2026-1-VS-omarra-5

Article Title: Perioperative management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review

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 Hertel 2025 et al., on portal venotomy for insulinoma, what was the primary reason the authors selected portal venotomy instead of en bloc vessel resection?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CT imaging and intraoperative palpation showed the thrombus was mobile, making direct venotomy feasible.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Because the thrombus was mobile and not firmly adhered to the vessel wall.
CT imaging and intraoperative palpation showed the thrombus was mobile, making direct venotomy feasible.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Portal venotomy enabled successful en bloc resection of a pancreatic insulinoma and associated thrombus in the portal vein, a novel approach in veterinary literature.
  • Temporary portal vein occlusion (15 min) was well tolerated, causing only transient small intestinal congestion without lasting hemodynamic compromise.
  • No intraoperative hemorrhage occurred following vascular isolation and venotomy repair with 5–0 polypropylene in a simple continuous pattern.
  • Postoperative complications were minimal, with only moderate pancreatitis managed medically and no portal hypertension observed on follow-up imaging.
  • Histopathology confirmed insulinoma, with no initial metastasis; CT at 6 months revealed hepatic and peritoneal metastases but no local recurrence at the venotomy site.
  • Portal vein luminal stenosis occurred post-repair but was clinically insignificant.
  • Advanced CT imaging and 3D printed modeling significantly enhanced surgical planning and anatomical assessment.
  • Surgical excision achieved good short-term outcomes, and the dog was alive and euglycemic one year later despite metastatic disease.

Hertel

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Successful venotomy for portal tumor thrombus removal due to pancreatic carcinoma in a dog

2025-5-VS-hertel-1

Article Title: Successful venotomy for portal tumor thrombus removal due to pancreatic carcinoma 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 You 2025 et al., on barbed sutures for lung lobectomy, what was the observed leakage rate at physiological airway pressure (<20 cmH₂O)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. None of the bronchial closure techniques showed leakage at <20 cmH₂O, the physiological pressure threshold.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No leakage in any group.
None of the bronchial closure techniques showed leakage at <20 cmH₂O, the physiological pressure threshold.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Barbed sutures showed comparable leakage pressure to traditional sutures and stapling devices (p = .36).
  • No bronchial leaks occurred at physiological pressure (<20 cmH₂O) in any group.
  • Leakage at supraphysiologic pressure (20–80 cmH₂O) occurred in 90% of stapler, 80% of traditional, and 60% of barbed suture closures.
  • Barbed sutures reduced ligation time significantly compared to traditional sutures (10.7 vs. 14.1 minutes, p < .01).
  • Staplers remained fastest, with mean ligation time of 2.4 minutes.
  • No knot failure or suture breakage was observed in barbed or traditional suture groups.
  • Leakage in barbed sutures occurred mostly at the loop effector zone, but remained within acceptable limits.
  • Barbed sutures may offer an effective alternative when staplers are unavailable, impractical, or cost-prohibitive.

You

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Evaluation of a knotless barbed suture for canine total lung lobectomy: An ex vivo study

2025-7-VS-you-1

Article Title: Evaluation of a knotless barbed suture for canine total lung lobectomy: An ex vivo 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 Gleason 2023 et al., on ala vestibuloplasty in cats, which of the following complications was reported after ala vestibuloplasty?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only minor complications were reported: mild epistaxis and hypersalivation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Mild epistaxis.
Only minor complications were reported: mild epistaxis and hypersalivation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Ala vestibuloplasty significantly reduced normalized pulmonary transit time (nPTT) (mean 5.43 → 3.89 sec; p <.001), suggesting improved cardiopulmonary function.
  • Clinical respiratory signs improved, including reduced snoring, sneezing, nasal discharge, and open-mouth breathing (all p <.01).
  • Activity tolerance increased, with less dyspnea during activity and longer time to onset of dyspnea (p <.005).
  • Paradoxical sternal motion resolved in all affected cats after surgery.
  • Hiatal hernias resolved in 75% of affected cats on follow-up CT.
  • No serious complications occurred, with only mild, self-limiting epistaxis and hypersalivation in a few cases.
  • Aberrant turbinates were detected on CT in all cats, though only 1 showed obstructive CATs endoscopically.
  • Total clinical severity scores improved significantly postoperatively (median reduction of 30 points; p <.001).

Gleason

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

Ala vestibuloplasty improves cardiopulmonary and activity‐related parameters in brachycephalic cats

2023-4-VS-gleason-4

Article Title: Ala vestibuloplasty improves cardiopulmonary and activity‐related parameters in brachycephalic 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 Miller 2024 et al., on intestinal obstruction and catheter technique in cats, what key factor was significantly associated with failed RRCT attempts?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cats with failed RRCTs had a longer median duration of clinical signs (6.5 vs. 2.0 days).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Longer duration of clinical signs prior to surgery.
Cats with failed RRCTs had a longer median duration of clinical signs (6.5 vs. 2.0 days).

🔍 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-2

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 Billas 2022 et al., on SSI risk after limb amputation, which variable was **not** associated with increased SSI risk?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only bipolar sealing device, trauma, infection, and non-clean wounds were significant predictors.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Use of sharp dissection.
Only bipolar sealing device, trauma, infection, and non-clean wounds were significant predictors.

🔍 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-4

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 Downey 2023 et al., on thoracoscopic lobectomy, what factor was associated with conversion to open thoracotomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Conversion was associated with median symptom duration of 90 vs. 7 days.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Longer duration of clinical signs.
Conversion was associated with median symptom duration of 90 vs. 7 days.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Thoracoscopic (TL) or thoracoscopic-assisted (TAL) lobectomy was successfully performed in 12 dogs with non-neoplastic pulmonary consolidation (PC).
  • 44% (4/9) of TL cases were converted to open thoracotomy due to adhesions or poor visualization—higher than rates for neoplastic lobectomies.
  • OLV was successful in 7/9 TL dogs; unsuccessful attempts were managed with intermittent ventilation, mostly in brachycephalic breeds.
  • Median hospital stay was 3 days; 91.7% (11/12) survived to discharge, and 100% of survivors showed no recurrence at median 24-month follow-up.
  • Complications were mostly minor: pneumothorax (2), minor hemorrhage (3), dehiscence (1), and 1 fatality due to BOAS complications.
  • Histopathology showed infectious pneumonia in 10 dogs, and in 4 cases, foreign body migration was suspected as the underlying cause.
  • Median surgical time for TL was 90 minutes; conversion correlated with longer symptom duration (median 90 vs. 7 days).
  • Postoperative recovery was excellent in all surviving dogs, with one case of persistent cough attributed to concurrent heart disease.

Downey

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Evaluation of long‐term outcome after lung lobectomy for canine non‐neoplastic pulmonary consolidation via thoracoscopic or thoracoscopic‐assisted surgery in 12 dogs

2023-7-VS-downey-2

Article Title: Evaluation of long‐term outcome after lung lobectomy for canine non‐neoplastic pulmonary consolidation via thoracoscopic or thoracoscopic‐assisted surgery in 12 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 Mullen 2024 et al., on NIRF for GDV, how did near-infrared imaging alter the surgical plan in affected dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. NIRF identified additional nonviable tissue and altered the surgeon’s planned margins in 3 of 20 GDV dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It changed resection margins in 3/20 dogs.
NIRF identified additional nonviable tissue and altered the surgeon’s planned margins in 3 of 20 GDV dogs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • NIRF altered surgical strategy in 3 of 20 GDV dogs, identifying necrosis not appreciated subjectively.
  • Fundic fluorescence <10% indicated histologically confirmed gastric necrosis.
  • In 1 dog, NIRF revealed nonviability despite the surgeon’s impression of viability.
  • Staple line fluorescence resembled viable tissue in the only stapled gastrectomy, suggesting preservation of perfusion.
  • GDV dogs (even “viable”) showed lower fluorescence vs. healthy controls, indicating subclinical vascular compromise.
  • Histology confirmed full-thickness necrosis in all 4 dogs with NIRF-defined nonviability.
  • Pre-op lactate was significantly higher in nonviable GDV dogs (8.55 vs 4.89 mmol/L, p=0.03).
  • No complications were reported from ICG use; imaging was safe and repeatable.

Mullen

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Use of real-time near-infrared fluorescence to assess gastric viability in dogs with gastric dilatation volvulus: A case-control study

2024-4-VS-mullen-2

Article Title: Use of real-time near-infrared fluorescence to assess gastric viability in dogs with gastric dilatation volvulus: A case-control 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?

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.