Quiz Question

In Hertel 2025 et al., on portal venotomy for insulinoma, what was the dog's outcome one year postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The dog remained euglycemic and stable despite CT-confirmed metastasis at 6 months.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Alive with metastatic disease and good quality of life.
The dog remained euglycemic and stable despite CT-confirmed metastasis at 6 months.

🔍 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-5

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 Knudsen 2024 et al., on CTA diagnosis, what was the observed **negative likelihood ratio (NLR)** of CTA for meniscal lesion detection in second readings?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A low NLR (≤0.1) suggests CTA is effective for ruling out lesions.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.08.
A low NLR (≤0.1) suggests CTA is effective for ruling out lesions.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Multidetector CTA had high sensitivity (up to 100%) and specificity (up to 96%) for detecting medial meniscal tears in dogs.
  • Observer experience significantly influenced diagnostic accuracy, with more experienced observers showing higher agreement and better performance.
  • Training effect was evident, as less experienced observers improved between first and second readings.
  • Positive likelihood ratios ≥4.6 and negative likelihood ratios ≤0.08 were observed, suggesting CTA is clinically useful for confirming or ruling out meniscal injury.
  • CTA allowed identification of full and partial thickness lesions, with good visualization in sagittal, transverse, and frontal reconstructions.
  • Approximately 90% of menisci were correctly classified in second readings.
  • No adverse reactions were noted from the contrast injection; sedation was used instead of general anesthesia.
  • CTA was less invasive and potentially more cost-effective compared to arthroscopy, especially in settings without MRI access.

Knudsen

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

2024-8-VS-knudsen-4

Article Title: Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

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 Farrugia 2025 et al., on BODPUO location effects, which variable most significantly predicted the postoperative change in proximal ulna angle?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Regression modeling showed a strong linear relationship between osteotomy location and ulna tilt change (r = 0.73).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Location of ulna osteotomy.
Regression modeling showed a strong linear relationship between osteotomy location and ulna tilt change (r = 0.73).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Proximal BODPUOs (closer to 26–28% of ulna length) resulted in greater increases in proximal ulna tilt postoperatively (up to 18°).
  • Distal osteotomies (closer to 48–49%) yielded minimal change in ulna angle.
  • Strong linear relationship between osteotomy location and change in angle; correlation coefficient = 0.73.
  • Initial proximal ulna angle (IPUA) influences results—angles closer to 90° yielded greater changes.
  • Craniocaudal osteotomy angle had minimal impact on tilt change after adjusting for location.
  • Osteotomy length had no significant effect on change in angle.
  • Prediction intervals showed wide individual variation in outcomes, especially with more proximal osteotomies.
  • No increase in complications was associated with more proximal osteotomies, contrary to past assumptions.

Farrugia

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Bi-oblique dynamic proximal ulna osteotomy: Effect of location on change in angle of the proximal ulna segment

2025-6-VS-farrugia-2

Article Title: Bi-oblique dynamic proximal ulna osteotomy: Effect of location on change in angle of the proximal ulna segment

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 Shetler 2022 et al., on radial head OCD, what confirmed the diagnosis of osteochondritis dissecans in this case?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Retention of cartilage cores and degeneration confirmed the OCD diagnosis.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Histopathology showing retained, degenerative cartilage.
Retention of cartilage cores and degeneration confirmed the OCD diagnosis.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bilateral radial head OCD lesions were identified in a 6-month-old English Bulldog with elbow lameness.
  • Medial arthroscopic portals allowed only partial visualization of radial head lesions, insufficient for treatment.
  • Lateral arthroscopy portals provided excellent access for fragment removal and abrasion arthroplasty.
  • Histopathology confirmed OCD, showing cartilage degeneration and retained cartilaginous cores.
  • Dog showed complete resolution of lameness and no elbow pain at 5 months post-op.
  • Lesions were caudolateral on the radial head, with discoid elevation of cartilage and clefts.
  • Lateral approach avoids major neurovascular structures, reducing iatrogenic risk.
  • The authors suggest lateral elbow arthroscopy may have broader indications, including for medial compartment disease or synovial biopsies.

Shetler

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

The use of lateral arthroscopy portals for the management of bilateral osteochondritis dissecans of the radial head in an English bulldog

2022-8-VS-shetler-2

Article Title: The use of lateral arthroscopy portals for the management of bilateral osteochondritis dissecans of the radial head in an English bulldog

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 Danielski 2022 et al., on PAUL complications, what was the inter-observer agreement (kappa) for predicting complications from radiographs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Kappa values were as low as 0.11, indicating poor agreement between experts.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.11.
Kappa values were as low as 0.11, indicating poor agreement between experts.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Major complications occurred in 25.6% of limbs treated with PAUL, including non-union, implant failure, and infection requiring revision surgery.
  • Increased body weight was significantly associated with a higher risk of complications (7% increased risk per additional kg; p = .04).
  • Post-operative radiographic assessment was unreliable in predicting complications; inter-observer agreement was poor (kappa ≤ 0.12).
  • Expert evaluation of implant or reduction errors had low predictive value (k < 0.2) for postoperative complications.
  • Common major complications included non-union (6 limbs), screw breakage, and surgical site infections.
  • Implant removal was required in 11.5% of limbs, mostly due to non-union or infection.
  • Being a Labrador appeared protective on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis after adjusting for weight.
  • Radiographs showing suboptimal plate placement or osteotomy reduction did not reliably correlate with actual complication occurrence.

Danielski

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Complications after proximal abducting ulnar osteotomy and prognostic factors in 66 dogs

2022-1-VS-danielski-5

Article Title: Complications after proximal abducting ulnar osteotomy and prognostic factors in 66 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 Saitoh 2025 et al., on CTS stabilization, which group of dogs all returned to work after CTS stabilization?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Farm dogs with instability.
All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 12 dogs with medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability (TCI), including 5 working farm dogs.
Procedure: Temporary immobilization using a calcaneotibial screw (CTS) combined with external coaptation (EC).
Stabilization techniques:

  • 3 dogs = primary ligamentous repair
  • 8 dogs = synthetic ligament reconstruction
  • 2 dogs = malleolar fracture repair

Follow-up: Median 31 months (range 4–66); 10 owners completed outcome survey.
Outcomes:

  • All 10 dogs had improved or resolved lameness.
  • All 5 farm dogs returned to work (most at full or substantial capacity).
  • Complication rate: 4 distinct events in 3 dogs (1 major = CTS breakage; 3 minor = bandage-related soft tissue injuries).

Conclusion: CTS + EC provided effective immobilization with low complication rate, and functional outcomes were favorable even in active dogs.

Saitoh

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

2025-1-VS-saitoh-4

Article Title: Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability 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 Knudsen 2024 et al., on observer performance, which observer factor significantly influenced diagnostic accuracy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Inexperienced observers showed significant improvement from Reading 1 to 2; experience had a direct effect on performance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Experience level and training.
Inexperienced observers showed significant improvement from Reading 1 to 2; experience had a direct effect on performance.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Study Design: Prospective case series of 52 scans from 44 dogs with CCL injury.
  • Main Technique: 16-slice CTA; evaluated by 3 observers with varying experience; validated against surgical mini-medial arthrotomy findings.
  • Diagnostic Metrics (Reading 2):
    • Sensitivity: 1.00 (Observers 1 & 2), 0.93 (Observer 3)
    • Specificity: 0.78–0.91
    • Positive Likelihood Ratio: Up to 10.71
    • Negative Likelihood Ratio: As low as 0.08
    • Accuracy: 90%+ for all in Reading 2
  • Observer Effect: Significant improvement between first and second reading for less experienced observers (p < 0.05); learning curve evident.
  • Meniscal lesions found:
    • 9/12 in suspected late meniscal injury cases
    • 19/40 in newly diagnosed CCL cases
    • Most common = bucket handle tears
  • Conclusion: Multidetector CTA is a clinically useful, non-invasive tool for identifying medial meniscal lesions in dogs with CCL disease.

Knudsen

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

2024-1-VS-knudsen-2

Article Title: Diagnosis of medial meniscal lesions in the canine stifle using multidetector computed tomographic positive-contrast arthrography

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 Niida 2024 et al., on surgical residents and TPLO time, how much longer did residents take compared to faculty surgeons (FS)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Resident surgeries took 1.54x the time of FS cases (153 vs 99 min).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 54% longer.
Resident surgeries took 1.54x the time of FS cases (153 vs 99 min).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Resident involvement significantly increased TPLO surgery duration compared to cases performed by faculty surgeons (FS)-only. Residents required 54% more surgery time (GLSM, 153 min) than FS-only cases (GLSM, 99 min), representing a 1.54-fold increase.
  • The study did not report on short-term complication rates. No conclusions can be drawn from this source regarding complications between resident and faculty groups.
  • Bone plate contouring was not evaluated. The source does not provide data regarding contouring frequency or its comparison between groups.
  • Surgery duration significantly decreased after the first year of residency, but remained stable between second- and third-year residents. This was largely due to shorter tibial osteotomy durations, while arthroscopy times remained unchanged across residency years.
  • Meniscal treatment was performed in 80% of cases, and it was associated with increased surgical duration, but the study did not compare the frequency of medial meniscal release between resident and faculty cases.
  • The study did not evaluate osteotomy healing or revision surgery. Cases requiring immediate reoperation were excluded.
  • Bone union outcomes were not assessed at 8 weeks or any other time point.
  • The study concludes that resident participation significantly prolongs surgical time, but no data are provided regarding the effect on short-term clinical outcomes.

Niida

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

The impact of surgery resident training on the duration of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and outcomes in dogs

2024-5-VS-niida-1

Article Title: The impact of surgery resident training on the duration of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and outcomes 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 Barrett 2023 et al., on complication grading systems, what was the **main limitation** in applying the aCD system to veterinary cases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The aCD system's reliability dropped when assessors misclassified these outcomes as complications.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Difficulty distinguishing sequelae and failure to cure from true complications.
The aCD system's reliability dropped when assessors misclassified these outcomes as complications.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cook system had good reliability across all cases (ICC = 0.848), even when complications, sequelae, and failure-to-cure were included.
  • aCD system had excellent reliability when excluding sequelae/failure-to-cure cases (ICC = 0.975) but only moderate reliability when including them (ICC = 0.620).
  • Majority of complications (60–63%) were graded as Grade 3 in the aCD system, corresponding to surgical or anesthetic intervention.
  • Cook system classified most cases (78–81%) as major complications.
  • Assessors had difficulty distinguishing sequelae from Grade 1 complications, and failure-to-cure from Grades 1–2, reducing aCD reliability.
  • The aCD system offers more resolution (5 grades vs. 3) and less subjectivity through objective definitions.
  • Novel terminology (e.g., sequelae, failure to cure) in the aCD system may hinder its uptake without proper training.
  • Reclassifying expected events (e.g., swelling, bruising) as sequelae could significantly reduce reported complication rates in other studies.

Barrett

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Comparison of two postoperative complication grading systems after treatment of stifle and shoulder instability in 68 dogs

2023-1-VS-barrett-2

Article Title: Comparison of two postoperative complication grading systems after treatment of stifle and shoulder instability in 68 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 Hawker 2024 et al., on checklist attitudes, what was a leading barrier cited for noncompletion of SSCs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Forgetfulness (39.6%) was the most frequently cited reason for SSC noncompletion.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Forgetfulness.
Forgetfulness (39.6%) was the most frequently cited reason for SSC noncompletion.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 67.9% of respondents reported using SSCs, with most indicating frequent use (64% used in every surgery).
  • 78.7% agreed SSCs reduce complications, and 89.6% believed SSCs improve communication.
  • Respondents not using SSCs were more likely to view them as a waste of time (p < .001).
  • Forgetfulness (39.6%) and time constraints (36.5%) were leading reasons for checklist noncompletion.
  • Only 23.3% had SSC training during surgical residency, with newer diplomates more likely to have had exposure (p < .001).
  • Key strategies to improve uptake included: staff feedback modifications (67.9%), formal designation of initiator (48.6%), and training (52.2%).
  • Surgeons and OR staff were most commonly identified as noncompliant team members.
  • SSC use was more frequent in small animal practices, and mandating SSCs by management was favored but not always effective alone.

Hawker

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Attitudes towards surgical safety checklists among American College of Veterinary Surgeons diplomates

2024-5-VS-hawker-2

Article Title: Attitudes towards surgical safety checklists among American College of Veterinary Surgeons diplomates

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.