Quiz Question

In Fink 2025 et al., on Roux-en-Y outcomes, which finding was associated with better survival outcomes post-surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Animals with non-neoplastic disease had a median survival of 192 days vs. 5 days for neoplastic disease.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Non-neoplastic underlying disease.
Animals with non-neoplastic disease had a median survival of 192 days vs. 5 days for neoplastic disease.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Roux-en-Y procedures were successfully completed in all 11 cases (6 dogs, 5 cats), despite case complexity and disease severity.
  • Median survival post-discharge was longer in cats (365 days) vs. dogs (82 days), with better outcomes in non-neoplastic vs. neoplastic disease (192 vs. 5 days).
  • Complication rate was high, with septic peritonitis, dehiscence, and cardiac arrest as leading causes of postoperative death; mortality rate = 36%.
  • Dehiscence rate was 8.6% (2 of 23 anastomoses), considered lower than typical rates for GI anastomoses in high-risk patients.
  • Feeding tubes (gastrostomy/jejunostomy) were used in all cases, enabling early nutritional support and stomach decompression.
  • Postoperative nausea and vomiting were common but mostly self-limiting; managed with metoclopramide, cisapride, and antiemetics.
  • Choledochojejunostomy was preferred when common bile duct was dilated, offering a favorable size match and potentially reducing bile leakage.
  • Roux-en-Y reduced typical Billroth II complications (e.g., bile reflux, afferent loop syndrome, dumping syndrome), with none observed in discharged patients.

Fink

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Roux‐en‐Y procedure to reconstruct the upper gastrointestinal tract in six dogs and five cats: A descriptive case series

2025-5-VS-fink-5

Article Title: Roux‐en‐Y procedure to reconstruct the upper gastrointestinal tract in six dogs and five cats: A descriptive case series

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 İnal 2025 et al., on feline high-rise trauma, what was the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for ATTS in predicting mortality?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The AUC was 0.857, indicating good predictive performance for ATTS
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.86.
The AUC was 0.857, indicating good predictive performance for ATTS

🔍 Key Findings

Sample: 373 cats with high-rise syndrome (HRS) from 2017–2020.
ATTS was the only significant predictor of survival (p < 0.001); each point increase decreased survival odds (OR = 0.46).
AUC for ATTS ROC curve: 0.857 (95% CI: 0.788–0.926).
Floor height, lesion type, and ground surface were not significantly associated with survival.
Odds of injury were 7.98× higher when landing on hard vs. soft surface (p < 0.001).
16.96× increased injury risk from the fourth vs. third floor (p = 0.008).
Cats with ATTS ≥7 had 62% mortality; median ATTS increased with floor height (r = 0.244, p < 0.001).
Thoracic and vertebral trauma were most common causes of death.
Only 32% of cats had the “classic” HRS triad (pneumothorax, epistaxis, hard palate fracture).

Inal

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2025

Survival Rate of High-Rise Syndrome Cases Using Animal Trauma Triage Score in Cats

2025-1-VC-inal-2

Article Title: Survival Rate of High-Rise Syndrome Cases Using Animal Trauma Triage Score in Cats

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 Welsh 2023 et al., on TTAF fixation methods, what approximate % of the **strength** did the single-pin construct achieve compared to two-pin fixation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Single-pin constructs had a mean strength that was 68% of that provided by two-pin fixation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 68%.
Single-pin constructs had a mean strength that was 68% of that provided by two-pin fixation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two-pin fixation had significantly greater strength (639 N) than single-pin fixation (426 N) in TTAF models (p = .003).
  • Stiffness was also higher with two-pin constructs (72 N/mm vs 57 N/mm); statistically significant (p = .029).
  • Both fixation types withstood loads greater than quadriceps force in dogs at a walk (240 N), indicating clinical viability.
  • Failure was most commonly due to pin bending or pullout (82%), with fewer cases of ligament tearing or epiphyseal fracture.
  • K-wire insertion angle (KWIA) did not significantly differ between fixation types (p = .13).
  • Single larger pins delivered ~68% of the strength and ~83% of the stiffness of two smaller vertically aligned pins.
  • Clinical implication: Two vertically aligned pins are biomechanically superior for TTAF fixation in canine models.
  • Study used mature cadavers, which may underestimate loads and stiffness compared to immature clinical cases.

Welsh

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion fracture model

2023-5-VS-welsh-3

Article Title: Biomechanical comparison of one pin versus two pin fixation in a canine tibial tuberosity avulsion fracture model

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 Ellis 2024 et al., which HU metric showed the best interobserver agreement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mean HU values had good interobserver agreement (ICC ~0.82–0.90), unlike minimum or maximum HU:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Mean HU.
Mean HU values had good interobserver agreement (ICC ~0.82–0.90), unlike minimum or maximum HU:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 86 elbows assessed: 32 Guide Dogs, 11 Border Collies
  • Guide Dogs showed significantly higher HU values in:
    • MCP: min (p = 0.022), mean (p < 0.01), max (p < 0.01)
    • Humeral trochlea: mean (p < 0.01), max (p < 0.01)
  • Results imply breed-associated HU variation, not necessarily pathologic sclerosis
  • Relevance: Important to avoid false positives for elbow dysplasia during CT-based breeding screens
  • Good interobserver agreement for mean HU values (ICC ~0.82–0.90)

Ellis

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Comparison of Hounsfield Units within the Humeral Trochlea and Medial Coronoid Process in a Population of Labrador X Golden Retriever Guide Dogs and Border Collies

2024-3-VCOT-ellis-5

Article Title: Comparison of Hounsfield Units within the Humeral Trochlea and Medial Coronoid Process in a Population of Labrador X Golden Retriever Guide Dogs and Border Collies

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 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 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 Alvarez-Sanchez 2023 et al., on SLN mapping in canine MCT, which tumor type showed unexpectedly high rates of lymph node metastasis?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 7 of 8 dogs with subcutaneous MCT had metastatic nodes, challenging assumptions of benign behavior in this tumor subtype.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Subcutaneous mast cell tumor.
7 of 8 dogs with subcutaneous MCT had metastatic nodes, challenging assumptions of benign behavior in this tumor subtype.

🔍 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-5

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 Horwood 2024 et al., on complications in luxoid hip dysplasia, what proportion of LH dogs had satisfactory outcomes following revision of major complications?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 17 out of 18 LH dogs had satisfactory outcomes post-revision.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 94%.
17 out of 18 LH dogs had satisfactory outcomes post-revision.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Luxoid hip dysplasia (LH) was present in 8% of THA cases and significantly increased risk of major complications (p < .001).
  • Intraoperative fissures/fractures were 3x more likely in LH dogs vs non-LH (39% vs 16%, p = .001).
  • Dorsal luxation was more frequent in LH dogs (28% vs 4%, p = .019).
  • Acetabular cup placement with ALO >35° was associated with luxation in LH dogs.
  • Morphologic abnormalities (e.g., femoral valgus, lateralization/medialization of cortices) were common in LH and may complicate implantation.
  • Despite higher risk, 94% of LH dogs achieved satisfactory outcomes after appropriate revisions.
  • Younger age and lighter weight characterized LH dogs (mean age 14.7 months vs 40.9 months, p < .001).
  • All LH dogs were treated with cementless stems; prophylactic cerclage was rarely used.

Horwood

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

2024-4-VS-horwood-5

Article Title: Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

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 Williams 2024 et al., on adrenaline use in maxillary nerve blocks, what adverse cardiovascular effects were observed due to adrenaline?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No dogs developed tachycardia, arrhythmia, tachypnea, or hypertension.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant adverse effects.
No dogs developed tachycardia, arrhythmia, tachypnea, or hypertension.

🔍 Key Findings

  • The addition of adrenaline (0.00198%) to bilateral maxillary nerve blocks significantly reduced intraoperative hemorrhage in dogs undergoing sharp staphylectomy (median reduction: 77.1%).
  • Normalized hemorrhage (g/kg) and total hemorrhage (g) were significantly lower in the adrenaline group (p = .021 and p = .013, respectively).
  • Surgeon-assessed hemorrhage scores were also significantly lower in the adrenaline group (median 2 vs. 3; p = .029), indicating improved surgical visibility.
  • No adverse effects (e.g. tachycardia, arrhythmia, or hypertension) were observed with adrenaline administration.
  • A standardized intraoral approach to the maxillary nerve block was used with 0.5 mL per side regardless of dog size.
  • Breed effect observed: English Bulldogs had higher normalized hemorrhage, possibly due to anatomical variation or underdosing relative to size.
  • Adrenaline may also prolong local anesthetic action and reduce blood aspiration risks, though this was not directly measured.
  • The study supports the routine inclusion of adrenaline in maxillary nerve blocks for staphylectomy in BOAS patients to improve surgical field and reduce bleeding.

Williams

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Evaluation of the addition of adrenaline in a bilateral maxillary nerve block to reduce hemorrhage in dogs undergoing sharp staphylectomy for brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome. A prospective, randomized study

2024-8-VS-williams-4

Article Title: Evaluation of the addition of adrenaline in a bilateral maxillary nerve block to reduce hemorrhage in dogs undergoing sharp staphylectomy for brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome. A prospective, randomized 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 Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the authors’ recommendation regarding clinical use of the prototype fracture reduction system?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Authors noted the system reduced fluoroscopy but was cumbersome and time-consuming, not ready for clinical cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Not recommended due to inefficiency.
Authors noted the system reduced fluoroscopy but was cumbersome and time-consuming, not ready for clinical cases.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates based on 3D-printed femurs produced accurate femoral alignment (median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes).
  • Both fracture reduction system (FRS) and intramedullary pin (IMP) methods achieved near-anatomic alignment in cadaveric femoral fractures.
  • FRS required fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, P = .001), but longer surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, P = .011).
  • Sagittal plane alignment: FRS led to mild increased recurvatum (median 2.9°), but still within near-anatomic limits (<5°).
  • Axial alignment: Both groups achieved near-anatomic torsion (<10°), though one IMP case had acceptable (not near-anatomic) alignment.
  • Custom drill guides and FRS improved fluoroscopy efficiency but were cumbersome and time-consuming to use. Authors do not recommend current prototype for clinical use.
  • Clinical significance: 3D printed models allow accurate precontouring, reducing intra-op plate adjustment; custom guides may reduce radiation exposure for the surgical team.

Scheuermann

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

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

2023-7-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?

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.