Quiz Question

In Chik 2025 et al., on abdominal wall prestretching, what was the observed effect on working space when PS was applied at 10 mmHg for 3 minutes and then reduced to 6 mmHg IAP?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Prestretching at 10 mmHg for 3 minutes resulted in a 6.9% increase in IWS when pressure was reduced back to 6 mmHg.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Working space increased by 6.9% compared to baseline.
Prestretching at 10 mmHg for 3 minutes resulted in a 6.9% increase in IWS when pressure was reduced back to 6 mmHg.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Prestretching (PS) at 10 mmHg for 3 minutes significantly increased working space at 6 mmHg IAP — IWL +4.4%, IWS +6.9%.
  • PS provided ≈63% of the IWL and ≈66% of the IWS gains achieved with sustained 10 mmHg IAP.
  • All laparoscopic procedures were completed at 6 mmHg after PS; no conversions or pressure increases were needed.
  • Working space benefits persisted throughout surgery — end-of-procedure measurements were unchanged from post-PS baseline.
  • Transverse expansion (RLAT/LLAT) was greater than sagittal (CRA/CAU), consistent with adult abdominal wall compliance.
  • No adverse anesthetic events occurred; mild complications (e.g., gas leakage) were easily managed.
  • Large breed dogs were overrepresented, but all dogs served as their own controls, normalizing size effects.
  • Prestretching is a simple, effective technique to maximize working space without increasing insufflation pressure.

Chik

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Prestretching increases working space at the same insufflation pressure in dogs undergoing laparoscopic procedures

2025-5-VS-chik-1

Article Title: Prestretching increases working space at the same insufflation pressure in dogs undergoing laparoscopic procedures

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 Moreira 2024 et al., on predictive equations for TPA correction, which technique demonstrated the **highest TLA shift** after cranial cortical alignment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Frederick and Cross mCCWO showed significantly higher TLA shifts at high wedge angles.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Frederick and Cross.
Frederick and Cross mCCWO showed significantly higher TLA shifts at high wedge angles.

🔍 Key Findings

  • A linear relationship was observed between wedge angle and tibial plateau angle (TPA) correction across all four CCWO techniques.
  • All techniques produced predictable TPA corrections using linear regression-derived equations, allowing wedge angle extrapolation to achieve a target postoperative TPA of 5°.
  • TLA shift (tibial long axis) increased with wedge angle and influenced final TPA; greatest in Frederick & Cross method.
  • Tibial shortening (mTL%) varied by technique, being most severe (up to 40.9%) in traditional Slocum & Devine CCWO and least in newer techniques (7.5–12%).
  • The Oxley mCCWO technique showed lower TLA shift compared to the Frederick & Cross and Christ techniques, though similar to Slocum & Devine; tibial shortening was more pronounced than other modified techniques at wedge angles ≤40°.
  • Techniques varied in craniocaudal translation and wedge apex positioning, influencing planning accuracy and mechanical axis alignment.
  • The corrective wedge angle equations reliably predicted TPA within 4–6° across varied tibial conformations.
  • The study supports equation-based planning over static TPA–5° subtraction to reduce risk of under- or over-correction.

Moreira

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Predicting tibial plateau angles following four different types of cranial closing wedge ostectomy

2024-8-VS-moreira-3

Article Title: Predicting tibial plateau angles following four different types of cranial closing wedge ostectomy

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 Banks 2023 et al., on TECA-LBO in brachycephalic dogs, which neurologic sign was most significantly more common in extreme brachycephalic breeds (EBBs) preoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Facial nerve paresis occurred in 28.4% of EBBs compared to only 5.3% in other breeds (p = .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Facial nerve paresis.
Facial nerve paresis occurred in 28.4% of EBBs compared to only 5.3% in other breeds (p = .001).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Extreme brachycephalic breeds (EBBs) presented more acutely and at younger ages, most often with neurological signs compared to other breeds.
  • Preoperative signs such as facial nerve paresis, vestibular syndrome, and Horner’s syndrome were significantly more common in EBBs.
  • EBBs showed more severe imaging findings, including higher rates of otitis interna (46.3% vs. 8.5%) and brainstem changes (17.5% vs. 3%).
  • Intraoperative complications were more frequent in EBBs (11.1% vs. 5.3%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = .078).
  • Perioperative complication rates did not differ significantly between EBBs and other breeds (23.5% vs. 29.3%).
  • Surgical time was significantly longer in EBBs (median 115 vs. 95 minutes; p = .011).
  • MRI or combined CT/MRI were more frequently used in EBBs, likely due to the higher prevalence of neurological signs.
  • Despite anatomical challenges, complication rates in EBBs were comparable, supporting TECA-LBO safety in these breeds.

Banks

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Influence of extreme brachycephalic conformation on perioperative complications associated with total ear canal ablation and lateral bulla osteotomy in 242 dogs (2010–2020)

2023-5-VS-banks-1

Article Title: Influence of extreme brachycephalic conformation on perioperative complications associated with total ear canal ablation and lateral bulla osteotomy in 242 dogs (2010–2020)

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 Aertsens 2025 et al., on thoracic lift technique, which device was used to create the chest wall lift in the second cat?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A bent 2 mm Steinmann pin was inserted at the 8th intercostal space and suspended to elevate the thoracic wall in Cat 2.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Bent Steinmann pin.
A bent 2 mm Steinmann pin was inserted at the 8th intercostal space and suspended to elevate the thoracic wall in Cat 2.

🔍 Key Findings

Case 1: Chest wall lift improved oxygenation (PaO₂ increased from 179.4 to 306.3 mmHg) and enabled thoracoscopic-assisted lobectomy in a cat with pleural effusion and pulmonary carcinoma.
Case 2: Chest wall lift using a Steinmann pin allowed 3-port thoracoscopic lobectomy for a bronchial foreign body; no complications observed.
Both cats: Lift increased working space and eliminated need for thoracotomy; no device-related complications.
Pretied ligating loops (PLL) were effective for hilar vessel ligation—preferred over staplers or self-locking ligatures in feline thorax.
Conclusion: Thoracic lift is a novel, minimally invasive method enhancing thoracoscopic procedures in small patients, particularly cats.

Aertsens

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Chest wall lift for thoracoscopic lung lobectomy: Technique and results in two cats

2025-4-VS-aertsens-2

Article Title: Chest wall lift for thoracoscopic lung lobectomy: Technique and results 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 Chan 2025 et al., on partial cuneiformectomy in BOAS dogs, what was the effect of cuneiformectomy on postoperative complication rates compared to multilevel airway surgery alone?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Complication rates were similar between PC and non-PC groups (16.3% vs. 19.4%, p = .758).
Incorrect. The correct answer is It did not significantly affect complication rates.
Complication rates were similar between PC and non-PC groups (16.3% vs. 19.4%, p = .758).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Partial cuneiformectomy (PC) did not increase complication rates compared to multilevel surgery alone (overall complications: PC = 16.3%, non-PC = 19.4%; p = .758).
  • Major complication rates were not significantly different (PC = 11.6%, non-PC = 7.4%; p = .482).
  • Significant improvement in BOAS grade was observed in dogs undergoing PC (p < .0001).
  • BOAS index improved significantly in both groups, with greater median reduction in the PC group (28.5%) than non-PC (20.7%) (p < .0001).
  • Low body condition score (BCS <4) was significantly associated with higher complication rates (odds ratio = 0.452; p = .004).
  • Hospitalization duration did not differ between groups (median = 1 day; p = .743).
  • Mortality was low (3.5%) in the PC group despite more severe airway disease, suggesting the technique is safe even in advanced collapse.
  • The technique widened the rima glottidis without damaging surrounding structures, reducing airflow resistance and preserving laryngeal function.

Chan

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Complication rate and outcomes of laryngeal cuneiformectomy in dogs with advanced laryngeal collapse

2025-6-VS-chan-1

Article Title: Complication rate and outcomes of laryngeal cuneiformectomy in dogs with advanced laryngeal collapse

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 Espinel Rupérez 2023 et al., in Arthroscopic-assisted hip toggle stabilization in cats, what was the median total surgical time for AA-HTS?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Median surgical time was 46.5 minutes, with ~7 minutes for arthroscopy and ~40 minutes for toggle placement.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 46.5 minutes.
Median surgical time was 46.5 minutes, with ~7 minutes for arthroscopy and ~40 minutes for toggle placement.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 14 joints from 7 cat cadavers underwent AA-HTS successfully.
  • Median surgical time: 46.5 min (29–144), including 7 min for arthroscopy and 40 min for toggle placement.
  • Intraoperative complications in 5/14 joints: 4 related to femoral tunnel creation, 1 toggle lodging.
  • Toggle passage through femoral tunnel was the most challenging step, mildly difficult in 6 joints.
  • Cartilage injury occurred in 10 joints, but all were minor (<10% of cartilage area).
  • 13 deviations from planned technique were identified (8 major, 5 minor), all involving femoral tunnel placement.
  • No neurovascular, intrapelvic, or major periarticular injuries occurred.
  • Authors conclude: AA-HTS is feasible in cats, but associated with high rates of minor iatrogenic cartilage damage, intra-op complications, and technique deviations.

Espinel Rupérez

Veterinary Surgery

7

2023

Arthroscopic-assisted hip toggle stabilization in cats: An ex vivo feasibility study

2023-7-VS-espinel-5

Article Title: Arthroscopic-assisted hip toggle stabilization in cats: An ex vivo feasibility 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 Evers 2023 et al., on needle arthroscopy, what was the average time for needle arthroscopy compared to standard arthroscopy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Needle arthroscopy averaged 8 ± 3 minutes vs. 15 ± 9 for standard arthroscopy (*P = .0041*).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Needle: 8 min, Standard: 15 min.
Needle arthroscopy averaged 8 ± 3 minutes vs. 15 ± 9 for standard arthroscopy (*P = .0041*).

🔍 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-3

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?

In Folk 2025 et al., on vessel sealing device reuse, what type of sterilization method was used after splenectomy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Devices were sterilized using EtO (ethylene oxide) between uses, and no viable aerobic bacteria were cultured post-sterilization.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Ethylene oxide.
Devices were sterilized using EtO (ethylene oxide) between uses, and no viable aerobic bacteria were cultured post-sterilization.

🔍 Key Findings

40 dogs underwent splenectomy using 16 bipolar vessel sealing devices (VSDs)
Devices were reused up to 4 times after handwashing and ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization
Biologic debris was found in 100% of devices, specifically under the transection blade, even after a single use

  • Mostly scant (14/16) or mild (2/16) debris

No devices or debris yielded positive aerobic culture after EtO sterilization
EtO sterilization proved microbiologically effective despite visible residue
Perioperative failure rate: 1 device (malfunctioned during first activation)

Folk

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Incidence of residual biologic debris and contamination of reused bipolar vessel sealing devices after ethylene oxide sterilization following splenectomy

2025-3-VS-folk-1

Article Title: Incidence of residual biologic debris and contamination of reused bipolar vessel sealing devices after ethylene oxide sterilization following splenectomy

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 Tobias 2022 et al., on perineal hernia repair positioning, which surgical advantage did dorsal recumbency provide?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dorsal positioning allowed concurrent perineal and abdominal procedures without needing repositioning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Simultaneous access to abdomen and perineum.
Dorsal positioning allowed concurrent perineal and abdominal procedures without needing repositioning.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Perineal hernia repair was feasible in dorsal recumbency in all 23 dogs, allowing simultaneous perineal and abdominal procedures without repositioning.
  • Internal obturator muscle transposition (IOMT) was successfully performed in 22 dogs, with tendon transection facilitating improved muscle elevation.
  • Complication rate was 60.9% in-hospital and 47.8% post-discharge, mostly minor (e.g., swelling, drainage), with infection suspected in 4 dogs (17.4%).
  • Recurrence rate was 19% overall, but significantly higher in dogs with prior hernia repairs (50% vs 5.9%; p = 0.053).
  • Dogs without prior repairs or organ pexies had no recurrences (p = 0.035), suggesting primary repairs without preexisting interventions fare better.
  • Castration and adjunctive abdominal procedures (e.g., colopexy, cystopexy) were often performed concurrently (18/23 dogs).
  • Colopexy did not prevent recurrence, although it aided in surgical visualization during perineal repair.
  • Dorsal positioning allowed simultaneous access to the abdomen and perineum, improving surgical efficiency without added complications.

Tobias

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Perineal hernia repair in dorsal recumbency in 23 dogs: Description of technique, complications, and outcome

2022-5-VS-tobias-1

Article Title: Perineal hernia repair in dorsal recumbency in 23 dogs: Description of technique, complications, and outcome

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 Levine 2025 et al., on thoracoscopic pericardiectomy, which approach avoided the need for one-lung ventilation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. ILR enabled bilateral ventilation and avoided the need for OLV.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Intercostal in left lateral recumbency (ILR).
ILR enabled bilateral ventilation and avoided the need for OLV.

🔍 Key Findings

Study design: Randomized cadaveric comparison (n=20 dogs; ILR vs PDR)

Approaches:

  • ILR = Intercostal in Left Lateral Recumbency (no OLV required)
  • PDR = Paraxiphoid in Dorsal Recumbency (traditional)

Outcomes:

  • Pericardiectomy time was shorter for ILR (p = .045)
  • Pericardial fragment size was significantly larger in PDR group (p = .004; 23.21 cm² difference)
  • Visibility and cardiac exposure were superior in PDR group

Feasibility:

  • ILR approach was consistently successful in achieving partial pericardiectomy
  • Bilateral ventilation was adequate; no need for OLV

Clinical relevance:

  • ILR may improve efficiency when paired with TDL
  • PDR remains preferable for cases requiring maximal pericardial resection

Levine

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Intercostal thoracoscopic pericardiectomy in left lateral recumbency: A cadaveric study of feasibility, efficiency, and extent of pericardial resection

2025-1-VS-levine-2

Article Title: Intercostal thoracoscopic pericardiectomy in left lateral recumbency: A cadaveric study of feasibility, efficiency, and extent of pericardial resection

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: Surgical Techniques & Planning
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.