Quiz Question

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 Griffin 2025 et al., on SLN mapping with ICG, what imaging modality was used to visualize lymphatic drainage?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. NIR overlay was used intraoperatively to track lymphatic flow and identify the SLN.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Near-infrared (NIR) imaging.
NIR overlay was used intraoperatively to track lymphatic flow and identify the SLN.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Case: 9-year-old Labrador with a right caudal pulmonary adenocarcinoma.
  • Technique: Peritumoral injection of indocyanine green (ICG) under VATS guidance, followed by near-infrared (NIR) imaging.
  • SLN identified: Right tracheobronchial lymph node fluoresced and was safely extirpated.
  • Histology: Grade 1 adenocarcinoma, pneumonia, reactive node.
  • Outcome: Patient deteriorated and died on postoperative day 3 due to systemic complications (not linked to surgical technique).
  • Clinical relevance: First clinical application of SLN mapping for canine pulmonary neoplasia; method feasible with open or minimally invasive approaches.

Griffin

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Intraoperative sentinel lymph node mapping with indocyanine green via video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary pulmonary neoplasia in a dog

2025-1-VS-griffin-3

Article Title: Intraoperative sentinel lymph node mapping with indocyanine green via video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary pulmonary neoplasia 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 Sisk 2024 et al., what conclusion did the authors draw regarding reamed versus unreamed IMN in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. One study cited showed improved outcomes with limited reaming vs. extensive reaming in dogs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Limited reaming improved outcomes in canine tibial fractures.
One study cited showed improved outcomes with limited reaming vs. extensive reaming in dogs:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • IMN provides relative stability, resists bending/torsion due to central axis alignment
  • Larger diameter nails = exponentially greater stiffness (∝ D⁴)
  • Trade-off: Larger interlocking holes weaken fatigue strength of the nail
  • Reaming increases contact/stability but has pros/cons:
    • Improves outcomes in closed fractures
    • May reduce endosteal blood flow in thin-walled bones (e.g., cats)
  • Design advances:
    • Angle-stable IMN reduce rotational slack
    • Expandable nails simplify insertion but may compromise removal or compressive load resistance
    • Precontoured nails match bone curvature but lack consistent clinical superiority
  • Material debates continue (e.g., titanium vs. stainless steel vs. magnesium)

Sisk

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

6

2024

Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

2024-6-VCOT-sisk-5

Article Title: Biomechanical Principles of Intramedullary Nails in Veterinary and Human Medicine

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 Scharpf 2024 et al., what type of analysis was used to assess limb loading recovery over time?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Force plate parameters (FZ, FY+, FY-, impulses, and SIs) were recorded at walk pre- and post-operatively at 4, 12, and 26 weeks:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Quantitative force plate gait analysis at walk only.
Force plate parameters (FZ, FY+, FY-, impulses, and SIs) were recorded at walk pre- and post-operatively at 4, 12, and 26 weeks:contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Subtotal coronoidectomy improved vertical and propulsive forces, but braking forces remained subnormal at 26 weeks.
  • No significant benefit was seen from ACP vs placebo at any timepoint across all force parameters or lameness scores.
  • Force plate analysis was more sensitive than visual lameness scoring.
  • Braking force (%FY+) was best at detecting persistent lameness, and SI < 0.9 persisted in most dogs at 26 weeks.
  • Outcome less favorable than historically reported — challenges status of subtotal coronoidectomy as “gold standard” for MCD.

Scharpf

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Assessment of Arthroscopic Subtotal Coronoidectomy in Treating Medial Coronoid Disease and Effect of Concurrent Autologous Conditioned Plasma in Dogs Using Force Plate Analysis

2024-2-VCOT-scharpf-4

Article Title: Assessment of Arthroscopic Subtotal Coronoidectomy in Treating Medial Coronoid Disease and Effect of Concurrent Autologous Conditioned Plasma in Dogs Using Force Plate Analysis

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 Marturello 2023 et al., on 3D-printed humeral models, which factor had the **greatest influence** on model accuracy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Bone size was found to have the most significant impact on 3D model accuracy compared to printer type.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Bone size.
Bone size was found to have the most significant impact on 3D model accuracy compared to printer type.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 3D-printed models using desktop printers (FDM, LFS) showed submillimetric accuracy, comparable to or better than industrial-grade PJP printers.
  • Bone size had a greater effect on print accuracy than printer type, especially in proximal humerus regions.
  • The humeral condyle region showed the greatest model accuracy, with mean differences under 0.5 mm, regardless of printer.
  • Models tended to be slightly smaller than cadaveric bones, potentially due to systematic underestimation during printing.
  • FDM printer provided the highest accuracy at the humeral condyle in medium-sized bones (+0.09 mm).
  • LFS printer produced prints faster and more reliably than FDM, although both had comparable dimensional accuracy.
  • Statistically significant differences existed, but all were submillimetric and unlikely to impact surgical outcomes.
  • Desktop printers are suitable for surgical planning, including plate pre-contouring and patient-specific instrumentation.

Marturello

Veterinary Surgery

1

2023

Accuracy of anatomic 3‐dimensionally printed canine humeral models

2023-1-VS-marturello-1

Article Title: Accuracy of anatomic 3‐dimensionally printed canine humeral models

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 Lee 2022 et al., on TPLO accuracy, what was a noted limitation affecting the generalizability of the study?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Variability in limb size and weight between groups may have influenced results.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cadaver limbs were from dogs of varying sizes and weights.
Variability in limb size and weight between groups may have influenced results.

🔍 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-4

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 Bower 2025 et al., on radial diaphyseal exposure, which statement best describes the comparison between craniomedial and craniolateral approaches?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study found no statistically significant difference in exposed surface area between approaches.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Both approaches provided comparable exposure.
The study found no statistically significant difference in exposed surface area between approaches.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Craniomedial and craniolateral approaches provided comparable exposure of the feline radial diaphysis (p > .05).
  • Mean exposed surface area was slightly greater with the craniolateral approach, both including and excluding the supinator muscle, but differences were not significant.
  • Elevation of the supinator muscle increased exposure for both approaches.
  • Cadaver weight and limb side did not significantly affect exposure area.
  • The craniolateral approach allows easier patient positioning in lateral recumbency without traction or an assistant.
  • Craniolateral access facilitates dual bone fixation (radius and ulna) through a single approach.
  • The craniomedial approach carries greater risk to median and radial nerves during muscle elevation.
  • Findings validate the craniolateral approach as a practical alternative for feline antebrachial fracture repair.

Bower

Veterinary Surgery

8

2025

Comparison of exposure of the feline radial diaphysis by the craniomedial and craniolateral surgical approaches for repair of antebrachial fractures

2025-8-VS-bower-1

Article Title: Comparison of exposure of the feline radial diaphysis by the craniomedial and craniolateral surgical approaches for repair of antebrachial fractures

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 Buote 2023 et al., on laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in cats, what was the mean percentage of stomach weight resected in the cadaveric LVSG procedures?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The average resected portion by weight was 27.6% in cadaveric models.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 27.6%.
The average resected portion by weight was 27.6% in cadaveric models.

🔍 Key Findings

  • LVSG was feasible in 9/10 feline cadavers and both live cats, with no intra- or postoperative complications in live cases.
  • Two cadavers developed suspected stenosis due to staple lines too close to the lesser curvature; avoided with orogastric tube placement in later cases.
  • No evidence of gastric leakage in any cadavers (8/10 tested) or live patients after methylene blue leak tests.
  • Mean surgical time was ~110 min cadavers / 115 min live, and 27.6% of stomach mass was resected.
  • Both live cats recovered uneventfully, lost 21–24% body weight over 3 months, and had no GI complications at 6-month follow-up.
  • Orogastric tube and tension on the greater curvature were critical to avoid staple line misplacement or stenosis.
  • No oversew of the staple line was needed, and unreinforced staples showed no leakage in live patients.
  • Future studies needed to assess metabolic outcomes and ideal staple sizing and closure techniques.

Buote

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in felines: A cadaveric feasibility study and experimental case series in two cats

2023-6-VS-buote2-3

Article Title: Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in felines: A cadaveric feasibility study and experimental case series in two 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 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?

In Peng 2025 et al., on topical amikacin gel, what maximum topical dose per kg was administered?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The highest dose applied to any dog was 24.9 mg/kg, nearing the systemic recommended maximum【90†Veterinary Surgery†L1-L20】
Incorrect. The correct answer is 24.9 mg/kg.
The highest dose applied to any dog was 24.9 mg/kg, nearing the systemic recommended maximum【90†Veterinary Surgery†L1-L20】

🔍 Key Findings

Objective: Determine if topical 45 mg/mL amikacin in CMC gel leads to systemic absorption in dogs with wounds.

Dogs enrolled: 11 client-owned dogs, with 31 applications of the gel.

Serum findings:

  • Only 5 of 153 samples were above the 2.5 µg/mL quantification limit
  • All values remained <5 µg/mL, the presumed toxicity threshold
  • No correlation was found between dose-related parameters (mg, mg/kg, mg/cm²) and serum amikacin levels

Peak concentrations were observed at ~2 hours post-application, declining rapidly thereafter

No nephrotoxicity observed, and most values were below detection

Conclusion: Topical amikacin gel appears safe at doses up to 24.9 mg/kg, with minimal systemic absorption

Peng

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Serum amikacin concentrations in dogs with naturally occurring open wounds treated with topical amikacin in carboxymethylcellulose hydrogel

2025-3-VS-peng2-4

Article Title: Serum amikacin concentrations in dogs with naturally occurring open wounds treated with topical amikacin in carboxymethylcellulose hydrogel

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.