Quiz Question

In Cola 2024 et al., on laparotomy-assisted endoscopy, how did LAER affect the need for postoperative analgesia compared to traditional enterotomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. LAER patients had a shorter duration of analgesia (median 36 h vs 48 h, p < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is LAER reduced analgesia duration.
LAER patients had a shorter duration of analgesia (median 36 h vs 48 h, p < .001).

🔍 Key Findings

  • LAER was effective (partial or complete) in 35/40 cases, regardless of FB location or type.
  • Intestinal wall damage significantly increased the likelihood of conversion to enterotomy (p = .043).
  • LAER led to significantly shorter hospitalization (median 48 h vs 72 h; p = .006).
  • Patients in the LAER group required less postoperative analgesia (median 36 h vs 48 h; p < .001).
  • Faster return to spontaneous feeding was seen in LAER group (median 24 h vs 36 h; p = .012).
  • No significant difference in complication rate or postoperative ileus between LAER and enterotomy groups.
  • Sharp, linear, or multiple FBs did not significantly affect LAER effectiveness.
  • Conversion to surgery was required in 5/40 LAER attempts, mostly due to immovable FBs or intestinal damage.

Cola

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

Laparotomy‐assisted endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies: Evaluation of this technique and postoperative recovery in dogs and cats

2024-7-VS-cola-3

Article Title: Laparotomy‐assisted endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal foreign bodies: Evaluation of this technique and postoperative recovery in dogs and 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 Low 2025 et al., on machine-learning prediction, which of the following breeds was associated with a significantly *reduced* risk of postoperative complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Labradors had a significantly lower risk of complications compared to other breeds.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Labrador Retriever.
Labradors had a significantly lower risk of complications compared to other breeds.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Postoperative complications occurred in 20% of stifles, including 7.5% minor, 10.3% surgical, and 3.4% medical complications.
  • The PROSPECT machine-learning model achieved high predictive accuracy: 92.3% for surgical complications, 91.9% for minor, and 94.3% for medical.
  • Top predictive features included surgical technique, implant type, patient age, and surgeon identity.
  • Surgeon-specific variables influenced predictions, indicating operator experience and technique matter.
  • Engineered interaction features (e.g., breed × implant) were more predictive than raw clinical data alone.
  • Rottweiler, intact male status, and higher bodyweight were associated with increased complication risk; Labradors had decreased risk.
  • Model calibration was strong, especially for high and low probability predictions; midrange predictions were less reliable.
  • The model supports individualized, probabilistic risk assessment, which could inform client counseling and tailored postoperative care.

PROSPECT = Predicting Risk Of Surgical compli­cations aftEr CCWO and TPLO

Low

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Machine‐learning prediction of postoperative complications after high tibial osteotomy for canine cranial cruciate ligament disease

2025-7-VS-low-2

Article Title: Machine‐learning prediction of postoperative complications after high tibial osteotomy for canine cranial cruciate ligament 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 Von Pfeil 2024 et al., on acute ulnar shortening in dogs, what was the most common clinical outcome?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All dogs achieved acceptable (7) or full (4) functional grading post-op.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Acceptable or full function in all dogs.
All dogs achieved acceptable (7) or full (4) functional grading post-op.

🔍 Key Findings

  • All dogs (11/11) showed improved radiohumeral articulation postoperatively, confirmed arthroscopically.
  • Median shortening: radioulnar (3.2 mm), humeroradial (1.8 mm), humeroulnar (1.2 mm).
  • Median lameness score improved from 2/4 to 1/4 by final follow-up.
  • Bone healing achieved in a median of 8 weeks (range: 4–14 weeks).
  • No major complications; minor issues included 1 screw loosening and 1 superficial infection.
  • Subjective function was graded full in 4 dogs, acceptable in 7.
  • Arthroscopy enabled accurate dynamic joint assessment, preferred over static radiographs.
  • Use of both orthopedic wire and plating provided secure fixation and improved outcomes.

Von Pfeil

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Outcomes of 11 dogs with short radius syndrome treated with acute arthroscopically assisted ulnar shortening

2024-3-VS-pfeil-3

Article Title: Outcomes of 11 dogs with short radius syndrome treated with acute arthroscopically assisted ulnar shortening

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 was the main benefit of using digital recordings for student performance assessment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Digital recordings allowed multiple raters to evaluate performance without introducing bias.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Enabled blinded multi-rater evaluation.
Digital recordings allowed multiple raters to evaluate performance without introducing bias.

🔍 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-5

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 Filho 2024 et al., what was the primary cause of limb amputation in the study population?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 38 out of 39 amputations were due to vehicular trauma:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Motor vehicle accident.
38 out of 39 amputations were due to vehicular trauma:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 39 dogs (mostly post-trauma) with either forelimb or hindlimb amputations (high vs low)
  • No significant difference in %BW distribution between high vs low forelimb amputations
  • In hindlimb amputees:
    • High amputations → more overload on contralateral hindlimb (p = 0.01)
    • Low amputations → more even load split, slight preference for contralateral hindlimb and ipsilateral forelimb
  • Values derived from pressure-sensitive walkway confirmed with statistical significance
  • Useful implications for prosthesis selection and rehabilitation planning

Filho

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Gait Analysis of Amputee Dogs Using a Pressure-Sensitive Walkway

2024-4-VCOT-filho-5

Article Title: Gait Analysis of Amputee Dogs Using a Pressure-Sensitive Walkway

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 Lee 2022 et al., on TPLO accuracy, which deformity was significantly reduced in cadaver limbs with 3D-guided TPLO?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found angular deformity was significantly reduced in cadavers using the 3D-printed guide (P < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Angular deformity.
The study found angular deformity was significantly reduced in cadavers using the 3D-printed guide (P < .001).

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed TPLO guides significantly reduced osteotomy inclination angle in both bone models and cadaver limbs compared to jig alone (P < .001).
  • Torsional deformities were lower when the 3D-printed guide was used in bone models (P < .001), but not significantly different in cadavers.
  • Angular deformities were significantly reduced in cadavers using 3D-printed guides (P < .001).
  • Proximal jig pin angulation was more accurate with the guide in cadavers (P < .001); not significant in bone models.
  • Medial cortex damage was substantially reduced in bone models when the 3D-printed guide was used (P < .001).
  • Postoperative tibial plateau angle (TPA) did not differ significantly between groups, suggesting that clinical alignment can still be achieved without the guide.
  • Clinical significance of improved metrics is uncertain, but improved precision may reduce surgical complications.
  • 3D guide design allowed direct placement of jig and bone plate, potentially improving workflow and safety.

Lee

Veterinary Surgery

6

2022

Evaluation of a customized 3D‐printed saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: An ex vivo study

2022-6-VS-lee-2

Article Title: Evaluation of a customized 3D‐printed saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: 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 Swieton 2025 et al., on portocaval shunts, what was the perioperative mortality rate?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only one dog died in the perioperative period, resulting in a 5% mortality rate.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 5%.
Only one dog died in the perioperative period, resulting in a 5% mortality rate.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 21 dogs with portocaval extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (EHPSS)
Surgical approach: 67% (14/21) underwent ameroid constrictor placement
Perioperative complications: 4 dogs (19%), including seizures (n = 2), vomiting, and abdominal effusion
Perioperative mortality: 1 dog (5%)
Postoperative clinical outcome:

  • Good to excellent outcome: 81% (17/21)
  • Median follow-up: 6 months (range 3–43)

Persistence of shunting (CT or US): 56% (9/16 evaluated)
Dogs with persistent shunting: 67% still had good to excellent clinical outcome
Congenital portocaval shunts may have more favorable outcomes than previously reported

Swieton

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Outcome of 21 dogs treated for the portocaval subtype of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt

2025-2-VS-swieton-5

Article Title: Outcome of 21 dogs treated for the portocaval subtype of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt

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 Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, what was the overall mean angular correction error found using both patient-specific and universal guides?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mean errors were under 2° for both guide types, with no statistical difference.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Less than 2°.
Mean errors were under 2° for both guide types, with no statistical difference.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Both patient-specific and universal guides yielded correction errors <2°, with no statistically significant difference in accuracy.
  • Universal guide corrected aLDFA up to 24° and AA up to 20°, addressing multiplanar deformities effectively.
  • Patient-specific guides allowed for preoperative simulation, providing more stable pin placement and potentially aiding less-experienced surgeons.
  • Universal guide eliminated the need for CT-based customization, reducing time and cost.
  • Cadaver and bone model trials showed consistent accuracy, validating both methods in vitro and ex vivo.
  • No significant differences in outcome when correcting uniplanar (aLDFA) vs biplanar (aLDFA + AA) deformities.
  • Universal guide's fixed size presented limitations in small dogs, potentially requiring multiple size options.
  • Universal guide showed potential for standard use, offering repeatable outcomes with minimal prep despite needing precise intraoperative placement.

Cheon

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs

2025-3-VCOT-cheon-1

Article Title: Comparing the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Guide and Universal Guide for Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Dogs

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics 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 Galliano 2022 et al., on vascular access ports, what was the reported functionality rate of ports placed in the femoral/external iliac vein (fSVAP)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 4 dogs with fSVAP had fully functional ports during follow-up.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 100%.
All 4 dogs with fSVAP had fully functional ports during follow-up.

🔍 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-1

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 Low 2024 et al., which factor was significantly associated with reduced postoperative complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Age was inversely associated with complication risk (p = 0.0051, OR = 0.61):contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Older age at surgery.
Age was inversely associated with complication risk (p = 0.0051, OR = 0.61):contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 47 dogs (57 elbows) underwent TCS placement for HIF
  • Overall complication rate = 17.5%
    • Minor: seromas (7 elbows)
    • Major: septic arthritis (3 elbows) — all resolved with antibiotics
  • No screw failures, medial epicondylar fractures, or catastrophic outcomes noted
  • Long-term follow-up in 41 dogs (50 elbows):
    • 90% full function, 10% acceptable function
    • Mean follow-up = ~2.5 years
  • Increased age was significantly protective (p = 0.0051; OR = 0.61)
  • TCS placement method (freehand, guide, aiming device) significantly impacted screw angulation but not complication rate
  • Outcome not affected by presence of complications

Low

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Long-Term Outcome and Complications after Transcondylar Screw Placement for Canine Humeral Intracondylar Fissure

2024-4-VCOT-low-2

Article Title: Long-Term Outcome and Complications after Transcondylar Screw Placement for Canine Humeral Intracondylar Fissure

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: Postoperative Care & Outcomes
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.