Quiz Question

In Buote 2023 et al., on laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG), what was the most common intraoperative complication in the cadaver model?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Stenosis was observed in 2/9 cadavers, associated with stapling too close to the lesser curvature.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Stenosis at the incisura angularis.
Stenosis was observed in 2/9 cadavers, associated with stapling too close to the lesser curvature.

🔍 Key Findings

  • LVSG was successfully performed in 9/10 cadavers and both live cats, demonstrating procedural feasibility.
  • Mean stomach resected was 27.6% of total weight in cadavers, with no leaks in 8/8 tested or either live patient.
  • Mean surgical time: 110.4 min (cadavers) and 115 min (live cats); no intra- or postoperative complications observed.
  • Stenosis near the incisura occurred in 2 cadavers; attributed to staple placement too close to the lesser curvature.
  • 3D printed cannulas (3DPCs) improved ergonomics and were used in 6/10 cadavers and both live procedures.
  • Live cats lost 21–24% body weight over 3 months, with full return to pre-surgical BCS and no GI complications.
  • Orogastric tube and proper tensioning were critical in preventing gastric stenosis during staple placement.
  • No reinforcement or oversew was used on the staple line; TriStaple cartridges provided reliable closure.

Buote

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

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

2023-7-VS-buote2-1

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 Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, what percentage of implants remained fully intact and functional at 6 months postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Only 2 out of 10 implants were found fully intact and functional at 6 months, representing a 10% success rate.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 10%.
Only 2 out of 10 implants were found fully intact and functional at 6 months, representing a 10% success rate.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 2 of 10 PET implants were fully intact and functional at 6 months post-op.
  • Owner-reported function (LOAD scores) improved by 51.7% (p = .008) over 6 months.
  • Gait asymmetry improved by 86% (p = .002) postoperatively.
  • Implant failure occurred in the midbody of the PET device, suggesting fatigue as a failure mechanism.
  • One dog (10%) developed implant infection, necessitating implant removal.
  • Implant fixation method (screws + washers + interference screw) was mechanically adequate and technically simple.
  • Partially intact implants (4/10) still showed improved clinical outcomes, despite structural compromise.
  • Midbody tearing and lack of long-term integrity prohibit continued use of this PET implant in CCL repair.

Johnson

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial

2022-8-VS-johnson-1

Article Title: Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial

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 Ferreira 2025 et al., on tibial torsion measurement, which method had the highest interobserver reproducibility?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The new method had an interobserver ICC of 0.83, higher than the traditional method (0.52).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 3D tomographic method described in this study.
The new method had an interobserver ICC of 0.83, higher than the traditional method (0.52).

🔍 Key Findings

Objective: Validate a new 3D CT-based method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with MPL, comparing it to a traditional method.

Sample: 40 tibiae from client-owned dogs with MPL (primarily small-breed).

Repeatability (intraobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.99 → excellent agreement

Reproducibility (interobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.83 → high agreement
  • Traditional method: ICC = 0.52 → moderate agreement

Torsion angle measurements:

  • New method avg: 16.00° ± 8.77
  • Traditional method avg: 8.76° ± 4.92

Conclusion: The new method is more repeatable, reproducible, and provides higher torsion values than the traditional Aper method, especially reliable for small-breed dogs.

Ferreira

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

2025-3-VS-ferreira-1

Article Title: Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in 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 Morgera 2022 et al., on stifle surgery draping methods, what was the most commonly performed procedure in the study cohort?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. TTA accounted for over 60% of the procedures in the study.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA).
TTA accounted for over 60% of the procedures in the study.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No significant difference in infection-inflammation rates between single-layer Kraton drapes and traditional double-layer draping at both 21 days and 6 months postop.
  • Infection-inflammation occurred in 4.56% (36/789) of cases; equally distributed across draping techniques.
  • Tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA) was the most common procedure (61%).
  • Kraton drape features an elastic fenestration that seals without adhesives or towel clamps, offering ecological and workflow advantages.
  • Mean anesthesia duration was similar between groups (~73.8 min), suggesting draping method did not impact overall surgical time.
  • Culture confirmation of infection was low (14 dogs), showing reliance on clinical criteria for diagnosis.
  • Potential benefits of single-layer draping include reduced waste, no need for towel clamps, and ease of use without increased risk.
  • Limitations included subjective follow-up (nearly 30% indirect via phone/images) and antimicrobial usage in all cases.

Morgera

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Surgical site infection‐inflammation in dogs draped with a single‐layer Kraton elastic seal extremity drape for stifle surgery

2022-3-VS-morgera-4

Article Title: Surgical site infection‐inflammation in dogs draped with a single‐layer Kraton elastic seal extremity drape for stifle surgery

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 Jeong 2025 et al., on contoured saw guide vs jig, what was the effect of each on *postoperative tibial plateau angle (TPA)*?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Despite improved cutting accuracy, TPA outcomes were statistically similar between techniques (p = .15).
Incorrect. The correct answer is TPA was equivalent across both groups (~6–7.6°)..
Despite improved cutting accuracy, TPA outcomes were statistically similar between techniques (p = .15).

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPLO with the contoured saw guide achieved more accurate osteotomy angles for both inclination and torsion in bone models and cadaveric limbs (p < .05).
  • Medial cortical damage was significantly lower with the contoured guide (247 vs. 1866 pixels in bone models; p < .001).
  • No significant difference in eccentricity (distance between actual and intended osteotomy center) was found between groups.
  • Postoperative tibial plateau angle (TPA) was similar between groups (6.4° vs. 7.6°; p = .15), though both were slightly higher than the target of 6°.
  • Deviation in medial mechanical proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) showed no significant group difference; valgus deformity occurred in both.
  • Osteotomy and device application times were similar between the contoured guide and jig-assisted TPLO.
  • The contoured guide eliminated the need for proximal jig pin, potentially reducing intra-articular pin risk.
  • The guide's multiple pin fixation system improved stability and alignment, supporting safer osteotomy on curved tibial surfaces.

Jeong

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Evaluation of a contoured saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs

2025-7-VS-jeong-3

Article Title: Evaluation of a contoured saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy 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 Clough 2022 et al., on CBLO-TTT construct testing, what is the clinical implication of combining CBLO and TTT?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study supports the feasibility of combined CBLO-TTT to address both stifle instability and patellar luxation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It offers a viable option for concurrent MPL and CCL treatment..
The study supports the feasibility of combined CBLO-TTT to address both stifle instability and patellar luxation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Combined CBLO-TTT did not reduce load to failure compared to CBLO or TTT alone (P = .81 and P = .12, respectively).
  • CBLO-TTT maintains construct strength without significant compromise compared to individual procedures.
  • Most common failure mode in CBLO-TTT was displacement of the tibial crest segment with k-wire pullout and tension band untwisting.
  • No fulcrum effect was seen in CBLO-TTT, unlike TPLO-TTT combinations, likely due to preservation of buttress effect.
  • Patellar ligament avulsion occurred in both CBLO and CBLO-TTT, but not as a clinical concern — possibly artifact from cadaver model.
  • Load-to-failure testing was static and unidirectional, not accounting for cyclic fatigue or in vivo healing.
  • Plate size and saw blade variation were based on clinical realism, introducing potential variability but not affecting outcomes.
  • Study suggests feasibility of simultaneous surgical correction of CCL rupture and MPL using CBLO-TTT in dogs.

Clough

Veterinary Surgery

3

2022

Combined center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy and tibial tuberosity transposition: An ex vivo mechanical study

2022-3-VS-clough-5

Article Title: Combined center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy and tibial tuberosity transposition: An ex vivo mechanical 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 Jeong 2025 et al., on contoured saw guide vs jig, what was a key outcome in terms of osteotomy *inclination* on cadaver limbs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The contoured guide significantly reduced osteotomy inclination deviation, improving perpendicularity (p = .008).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Contoured guide showed more accurate inclination angle (1.2° vs. 4.3°)..
The contoured guide significantly reduced osteotomy inclination deviation, improving perpendicularity (p = .008).

🔍 Key Findings

  • TPLO with the contoured saw guide achieved more accurate osteotomy angles for both inclination and torsion in bone models and cadaveric limbs (p < .05).
  • Medial cortical damage was significantly lower with the contoured guide (247 vs. 1866 pixels in bone models; p < .001).
  • No significant difference in eccentricity (distance between actual and intended osteotomy center) was found between groups.
  • Postoperative tibial plateau angle (TPA) was similar between groups (6.4° vs. 7.6°; p = .15), though both were slightly higher than the target of 6°.
  • Deviation in medial mechanical proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) showed no significant group difference; valgus deformity occurred in both.
  • Osteotomy and device application times were similar between the contoured guide and jig-assisted TPLO.
  • The contoured guide eliminated the need for proximal jig pin, potentially reducing intra-articular pin risk.
  • The guide's multiple pin fixation system improved stability and alignment, supporting safer osteotomy on curved tibial surfaces.

Jeong

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Evaluation of a contoured saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs

2025-7-VS-jeong-1

Article Title: Evaluation of a contoured saw guide for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy 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 Story 2024 et al., on surgical correction of excessive tibial plateau angle (eTPA), which two techniques demonstrated the most accurate achievement of their target TPA values?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Groups A and D had the least variation from their target TPAs, with mean correction accuracy near 1.0.
Incorrect. The correct answer is CBLO + CCWO and PTNWO.
Groups A and D had the least variation from their target TPAs, with mean correction accuracy near 1.0.

🔍 Key Findings

  • All four techniques achieved TPA <14°, meeting the threshold for acceptable surgical correction in eTPA cases.
  • Group A (CBLO + CCWO) and Group D (PTNWO) showed highest accuracy in achieving target TPA values.
  • Group B (TPLO + CCWO) resulted in significant tibial shortening compared to other techniques.
  • Group A caused the greatest cranial mechanical axis shift, while Group B caused the least.
  • Group C (mCCWO) resulted in consistent under-correction of TPA, despite aiming for 0°.
  • Modified or neutral wedge osteotomies (Groups C and D) had minimal effect on tibial length, making them suitable when preservation is important.
  • All techniques involved mechanical axis shifts, highlighting the importance of preoperative planning to minimize morphologic disruption.
  • Supplemental fixation was standard for all procedures to reduce risks such as tibial tuberosity fracture and plateau leveling loss.

Story

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

2024-8-VS-story-3

Article Title: Morphologic impact of four surgical techniques to correct excessive tibial plateau angle in dogs: A theoretical radiographic analysis

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 de la Oliva 2024 et al., what was the prevalence of contralateral HIF in French Bulldogs with humeral condylar fracture?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Contralateral intracondylar fissure was identified in 36 out of 89 French Bulldogs (40.4%):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 40.4%.
Contralateral intracondylar fissure was identified in 36 out of 89 French Bulldogs (40.4%):contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 89 French Bulldogs with HCF; 40.4% (36/89) had contralateral HIF
  • Prophylactic transcondylar screws placed in 20/36 HIF; no complications in these
  • Complication rate for HCF repair = 13.4% (6.7% minor, 6.7% major)
  • Most complications occurred with Kirschner wire fixation
  • Short-term outcome: Bone healing observed in all, but 14/45 had persistent intracondylar gap
  • Long-term outcomes (n=27):
    • Excellent = 66.7%
    • Good = 29.6%
    • Fair = 3.7%
  • Complication-free dogs significantly more likely to have excellent/good outcomes (p = 0.007)

Delaoliva

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

2024-3-VCOT-delaoliva-1

Article Title: Humeral Condylar Fractures in French Bulldogs: Prevalence of Contralateral Intracondylar Fissure, Treatment, and Outcome

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 Evers 2023 et al., on needle arthroscopy, what was the reported sensitivity for detecting medial meniscal tears?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Needle arthroscopy had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity using standard arthroscopy as the reference.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 95%.
Needle arthroscopy had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity using standard arthroscopy as the reference.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Needle arthroscopy (NA) had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting medial meniscal tears using standard arthroscopy (SA) as the reference.
  • NA correctly identified meniscal status in 25/26 dogs, missing only one stable nondisplaced tear.
  • NA took less time than SA: 8 ± 3 min vs. 15 ± 9 min (P = .0041).
  • Visibility scores were significantly lower with NA than SA for all meniscal horns (medial and lateral) .
  • Probing difficulty was greater with NA, especially for the lateral meniscus (P = .0017).
  • NA caused no measurable morbidity: lameness scores were unchanged before and after the procedure (P = .25).
  • NA was possible in sedated dogs, though 10/26 required additional anesthesia due to delays.
  • NA missed 1 lateral tear, likely due to reduced access and lack of shaving compared to SA.

Evers

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Accuracy of needle arthroscopy for the diagnosis of medial meniscal tears in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture

2023-7-VS-evers-1

Article Title: Accuracy of needle arthroscopy for the diagnosis of medial meniscal tears in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture

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: Stifle Joint
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.