Quiz Question

In Azuma 2024 et al., on 3D vs 2D laparoscopy, which group might benefit most from 3D laparoscopy based on the study’s discussion?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 3D visualization improves depth perception, aiding less experienced surgeons.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Trainee or novice surgeons.
3D visualization improves depth perception, aiding less experienced surgeons.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D laparoscopy significantly reduced time to first endoclip placement compared to 2D (median 76 vs. 238 seconds, p = .016).
  • Total surgical time was not significantly different between 3D and 2D groups.
  • No differences were observed in intraoperative complications such as cystic duct injury, clip dislodgment, or gallbladder perforation.
  • Cystic duct stump length was comparable between groups (median 2.5 mm).
  • Liver parenchyma attachment severity did not differ significantly between 2D and 3D groups.
  • All procedures were performed by an experienced surgeon, potentially reducing the benefit seen with 3D visualization.
  • No conversions to open surgery occurred, and no intraoperative complications were reported.
  • The study suggests 3D laparoscopy may aid less experienced surgeons due to enhanced depth perception.

Azuma

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy for cholecystectomy in a canine cadaveric study

2024-4-VS-azuma-5

Article Title: Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy for cholecystectomy in a canine cadaveric 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 Stoneburner 2024 et al., on MIS survey results, what was the most cited reason for performing MIS techniques?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Respondents ranked reduced pain and faster recovery as top motivators (mean 4.0/5).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Patient benefit.
Respondents ranked reduced pain and faster recovery as top motivators (mean 4.0/5).

🔍 Key Findings

  • The survey included 111 practicing surgeons and 28 residents from ACVS, ECVS, and ANZCVS. 98.2% had performed soft tissue minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
  • In the past year, surgeons reported a median caseload of 90% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced laparoscopy, and 10% thoracoscopy; for residents: 100% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced, 0% thoracoscopy.
  • Laparoscopic ovariectomy and OHE were the most commonly performed MIS procedures, with most respondents proficient in basic laparoscopy, but few performing advanced laparoscopy or thoracoscopy.
  • Top barriers to MIS adoption were: lack of consistent caseload, lack of training, difficult learning curve, equipment limitations, and cost.
  • 76.6% of surgeons and 92.9% of residents received MIS training during residency. Those trained had completed residency median 6 years ago, compared to 22 years ago for those without MIS training (p < .001). Perceived adequate training correlated with higher proficiency.
  • MIS was recognized as having a steep learning curve, but patient benefits (mean score 4.0/5) were the top motivation — less pain, faster recovery, improved visualization.
  • The authors conclude basic laparoscopy is widely adopted, but advanced and thoracoscopic MIS remain underutilized. Training and access are key to future growth.
  • Expanded training and improved access to equipment are necessary to promote broader integration of MIS into veterinary soft-tissue surgery.

Stoneburner

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

2024-5-VS-stoneburner-5

Article Title: Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

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 Petchell 2025 et al., on CORA-based CCWO, which of the following methods showed the least variability in postoperative outcomes across all breeds?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CCWOCORA had zero variance in TPAPOST (5.00° in all cases), making it the most predictable.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CCWOCORA.
CCWOCORA had zero variance in TPAPOST (5.00° in all cases), making it the most predictable.

🔍 Key Findings

  • The CORA-based cranial closing wedge ostectomy (CCWOCORA) consistently achieved the target postoperative TPA of 5° across all tibial morphologies.
  • CCWOCORA produced significantly less variability in postoperative TPA compared to other methods (TPA range: 5.00–5.00°; p < .001).
  • Mechanical axis advancement (MAA) was precisely controlled at 3° in CCWOCORA, leading to greater surgical predictability.
  • Other techniques (e.g., CCWOTPA, CCWOTPA–5, CCWOISO) showed greater variance in TPA, MAA, and tibial length.
  • In small-breed dogs, increasing the MAA from 3° to 5° did not affect TPA outcomes, but increased proximal bone stock, improving feasibility.
  • Wedge angles and tibial length changes varied by method, but CCWOCORA maintained length better than TPA-based methods.
  • The technique allows preoperative planning of both desired MAA and TPA, enhancing predictability and customization.
  • CORA methodology enables precise geometric correction and alignment of mechanical axes, reducing reliance on trial-and-error alignment.

Petchell

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

An in silico comparison of a novel CORA-based cranial closing wedge ostectomy methodology with three other techniques

2025-7-VS-petchell-4

Article Title: An in silico comparison of a novel CORA-based cranial closing wedge ostectomy methodology with three other techniques

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 Lampart 2023 et al., on manual laxity testing, which test showed the greatest interobserver variability in compressive force applied?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CD showed poor interobserver agreement for force application (ICC = 0.44), likely due to examiner experience and hand positioning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cranial drawer test.
CD showed poor interobserver agreement for force application (ICC = 0.44), likely due to examiner experience and hand positioning.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cranial drawer (CD), tibial compression (TCT), and tibial pivot compression test (TPCT) showed 100% sensitivity and specificity in differentiating intact from CCL-deficient stifles in this ex vivo model.
  • TPCT elicited the highest cranial tibial translation (CTT) and internal tibial rotation, though differences in rotation did not reach statistical significance.
  • Inter- and intraobserver agreement for CTT was excellent across all tests (ICC >0.9).
  • Rotation and force application had greater variability, particularly with less experienced observers and during CD.
  • Forces applied during CD were significantly higher in intact limbs and correlated with observer experience.
  • Subjective CTT estimates strongly correlated with objective kinematic measurements (r = 0.895), with a median absolute error of 1.31 mm.
  • TPCT may be particularly useful for assessing rotational instability, mimicking the pivot-shift test used in human ACL exams.
  • Study supports development of a grading system for manual laxity testing, especially in acute CCLR cases.

Lampart

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Evaluation of the accuracy and intra‐ and interobserver reliability of three manual laxity tests for canine cranial cruciate ligament rupture—An ex vivo kinetic and kinematic study

2023-5-VS-lampart-4

Article Title: Evaluation of the accuracy and intra‐ and interobserver reliability of three manual laxity tests for canine cranial cruciate ligament rupture—An ex vivo kinetic and kinematic 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 Devriendt 2022 et al., on EHPSS blood testing, what was a noted **limitation** of the SHA test in clinical practice?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. SHA requires ELISA for measurement, limiting its practicality in everyday clinical settings.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Can only be measured by ELISA, limiting routine use.
SHA requires ELISA for measurement, limiting its practicality in everyday clinical settings.

🔍 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-5

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 Cheon 2025 et al., on guide accuracy in DFO, what was a notable advantage of the patient-specific guide?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Patient-specific guides allowed preoperative simulation and precise planning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Simulated pre-op corrections.
Patient-specific guides allowed preoperative simulation and precise planning.

🔍 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-3

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 Alvarez-Sanchez 2023 et al., on SLN mapping in canine MCT, how often did the anatomic lymph node (ALN) match the SLN identified by ICTL?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only 45% of ALNs matched the ICTL-identified SLNs, indicating a high likelihood of misclassification when relying on anatomy alone.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 45%.
Only 45% of ALNs matched the ICTL-identified SLNs, indicating a high likelihood of misclassification when relying on anatomy alone.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Combined ICTL and NIRF detected the same SLN in 80% of cases; each method alone missed sentinel lymph nodes in some dogs.
  • ICLT failed in 5% of dogs, while NIRF failed in 20%; combined use resulted in only 5% failure in SLN detection.
  • Metastatic lymph nodes were detected in 95% of dogs, despite most tumors being low or intermediate grade (95%).
  • 27 of 41 nodes (65.8%) were histologically metastatic (HN2 or HN3), many of which would have been missed using ALN alone.
  • ALN matched the SLN in only 45% of cases with ICTL and 30% with NIRF, supporting the need for SLN mapping.
  • ICLT and NIRF were complementary, often identifying different SLN, with some only fluorescent or enhanced in one modality.
  • Subcutaneous MCT had higher metastatic rates (7/8 dogs) than previously reported, challenging older assumptions about benign behavior.
  • Removing both ALN and SLN (from both methods) improved detection of metastasis to 85–95%, reducing risk of understaging.

Alvarez-Sanchez

Veterinary Surgery

3

2023

Comparison of indirect computed tomographic lymphography and near-infrared fluorescence sentinel lymph node mapping for integumentary canine mast cell tumors

2023-3-VS-alvarez-sanchez-3

Article Title: Comparison of indirect computed tomographic lymphography and near-infrared fluorescence sentinel lymph node mapping for integumentary canine mast cell tumors

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 Schneider 2025 et al., on axillary LN extirpation, which statement best reflects the accuracy of cytology for staging ALNs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Four LNs had false-negative cytology but were later confirmed metastatic on histopathology, highlighting limitations of cytology.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It misclassified 4 metastatic nodes as non-metastatic.
Four LNs had false-negative cytology but were later confirmed metastatic on histopathology, highlighting limitations of cytology.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Lateral approach to ALN extirpation was successful in 100% of cases (44 dogs, 48 ALNs) with consistent anatomical landmarks (costochondral junction of rib 1 and caudal scapular edge).
  • Median time for ALN removal was 16.6 minutes, highlighting a fast and efficient dissection method.
  • No intraoperative complications were recorded (e.g., hemorrhage or inability to find the lymph node).
  • Postoperative complications occurred in 18% of cases, including seromas (n=2), wound dehiscence (n=4), lameness (n=1), and discomfort (n=1).
  • Histopathology revealed 56% of ALNs had tumor-related pathology, including overt metastases, early metastasis (HN2), or premetastatic changes (HN1).
  • Normal-sized ALNs (<2 cm) still harbored metastases in 22% of cases, emphasizing the unreliability of size as a staging criterion.
  • False negatives in cytology occurred in 4 cases, underlining the limitations of cytologic evaluation for staging.
  • The technique was reproducible without specialized tools, suggesting wide applicability in general and referral practice.

Schneider

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Axillary lymph node removal for staging cancer; description of a lateral approach and application in 44 tumor-bearing dogs

2025-6-VS-schneider-5

Article Title: Axillary lymph node removal for staging cancer; description of a lateral approach and application in 44 tumor-bearing 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 Scheuermann 2023 et al., on femoral MIPO alignment, what was a noted limitation of the prototype FRS?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Authors noted the system was bulky, time-consuming, and difficult to use clinically in its current form.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It was cumbersome and inefficient.
Authors noted the system was bulky, time-consuming, and difficult to use clinically in its current form.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates using 3D-printed femoral models achieved near-anatomic alignment in all cadaver limbs.
  • Fracture reduction system (FRS) required significantly fewer fluoroscopy images than intramedullary pin (IMP) methods (7 vs 26, P = .001).
  • Despite longer surgical time (43 vs 29 minutes, P = .011), FRS showed equally accurate or better alignment compared to IMP.
  • Femoral length, frontal, sagittal, and axial alignment were all within near-anatomic thresholds (<10 mm or <5° deviation) in both groups.
  • FRS was associated with more consistent length maintenance, with IMP showing a median shortening of 2.3 mm (P = .03).
  • Axial plane deviation was statistically different in the FRS group (P = .04), but still clinically acceptable.
  • Study highlights potential for custom 3D-printed guides to reduce radiation exposure and improve precision in MIPO procedures.
  • Authors caution that FRS was time-consuming and cumbersome, suggesting design refinements needed for clinical use.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D‐printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs

2023-6-VS-scheuermann-5

Article Title: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D‐printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study 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 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Research & Evidence
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.