Quiz Question

In Ibrahim 2022 et al., on scrotal arterial supply, which artery was identified as the **dominant** source of scrotal perfusion in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The dorsal scrotal arteries, arising from the ventral perineal arteries, provided the most consistent and extensive perfusion in all cadavers.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Dorsal scrotal artery from ventral perineal.
The dorsal scrotal arteries, arising from the ventral perineal arteries, provided the most consistent and extensive perfusion in all cadavers.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Dorsal scrotal arteries, branching from the ventral perineal arteries, are the dominant arterial supply to the scrotum in dogs.
  • The ventral scrotal arteries, arising from the external pudendal arteries, perfused only the cranial scrotal border and were inconsistently present or absent in some dogs.
  • A scrotal flap based on the dorsal scrotal arteries showed strong perfusion and may be a viable axial pattern flap.
  • Perfusion was consistent across fresh and frozen cadavers, showing no difference due to preservation method.
  • Poor flap survival (27%) occurred when based on cranial supply alone (i.e., ventral scrotal arteries), confirming importance of preserving caudal supply.
  • There are anastomoses between dorsal and ventral scrotal arteries, offering collateral flow but insufficient alone for complete perfusion.
  • Scrotal flaps based on the caudal pedicle may be applicable for reconstruction of proximal medial/lateral thigh wounds.
  • Proposed flap requires careful preservation of ventral perineal arteries, ideally designed 2.5–3 cm lateral to midline in large dogs.

Ibrahim

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Arterial supply to the scrotum: A cadaveric angiographic study

2022-4-VS-ibrahim-1

Article Title: Arterial supply to the scrotum: A cadaveric angiographic 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 Jeon 2025 et al., on distal femoral shortening, which **advantage of DFSO over subtrochanteric osteotomy** is highlighted in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. DFSO avoids disrupting critical proximal structures needed for stem fixation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Preservation of proximal femoral anatomy for stable fixation.
DFSO avoids disrupting critical proximal structures needed for stem fixation.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Distal femoral shortening osteotomy (DFSO) enabled prosthesis reduction in all 4 dogs with irreducible luxoid hips undergoing total hip replacement.
  • Median femoral shortening ratio was 13.8% (range: 10.7–15.3%) based on intraoperative tension needed for prosthesis reduction.
  • Bone union was achieved in all cases post-DFSO, indicating good healing potential.
  • Two major complications occurred: one prosthetic luxation and one aseptic stem loosening requiring explantation.
  • One intraoperative fracture of the greater trochanter occurred during trial reduction before DFSO.
  • DFSO did not result in neurovascular injury, even in cases with significant femoral head displacement (>4 cm).
  • Radiographic planning with FHD index and intraoperative assessment were crucial for determining DFSO necessity.
  • DFSO avoids complications linked to subtrochanteric osteotomy by preserving proximal femoral anatomy and allowing secure distal fixation.

Jeon

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Distal femoral shortening osteotomy for managing irreducible hips during total hip replacement in four dogs with severe luxoid hips

2025-6-VS-jeon-5

Article Title: Distal femoral shortening osteotomy for managing irreducible hips during total hip replacement in four dogs with severe luxoid hips

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 Danielski 2024 et al., on PUO effect on HIF, what was one proposed biomechanical outcome of PUO regarding the anconeal process?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study confirmed cranio-proximal displacement of the anconeal process following PUO.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It displaced cranio-proximally toward the supratrochlear foramen.
The study confirmed cranio-proximal displacement of the anconeal process following PUO.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Sample: 51 elbows from 35 spaniel dogs
  • Healing Rate: Subjective healing (complete or partial) in 80.3% of elbows; complete in 54.9%
  • Objective HU analysis: Mean HU increased from 640 (pre-op) to 835 (follow-up) (p = .001)
  • Age Effect: Dogs <14 months showed the greatest HU increase (+384 HU) and had wider fissures with less sclerosis
  • Complications:
    • Major: 5 dogs (6 limbs); 4 related to fissure healing (7.8%), 2 related to PUO healing (3.9%)
    • Minor: 3 cases (5.8%) due to IM pin migration
  • Sclerosis: Older dogs had more humeral condyle sclerosis, possibly limiting healing
  • PUO Effectiveness: Confirmed cranio-proximal displacement of anconeal process; aimed to relieve humero-anconeal incongruity
  • Control Comparison: Avoids complications associated with transcondylar screw (infection, breakage)

Danielski

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Influence of oblique proximal ulnar osteotomy on humeral intracondylar fissures in 35 spaniel breed dogs

2024-2-VS-danielski-5

Article Title: Influence of oblique proximal ulnar osteotomy on humeral intracondylar fissures in 35 spaniel breed 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 Longo 2023 et al., on CT trochlear measurements, what difference in FTGA was observed between small and medium/large breed dogs without MPL?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Small breed dogs without MPL had significantly greater (shallower) FTGA than medium/large breeds, suggesting breed-specific anatomy.
Incorrect. The correct answer is FTGA was greater (shallower) in SB dogs.
Small breed dogs without MPL had significantly greater (shallower) FTGA than medium/large breeds, suggesting breed-specific anatomy.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Dogs with MPL had significantly shallower femoral trochlear grooves compared to controls, based on CT-measured femoral trochlear groove angle (FTGA).
  • FTGA >134° in small breeds (SB) and >128° in medium/large breeds (MLB) were associated with MPL and can serve as surgical thresholds for considering trochleoplasty.
  • FTA and FTRIA measurements were less reliable, showing lower sensitivity/specificity than FTGA.
  • Inter-rater reliability for FTGA was excellent (ICC > 0.9), supporting its use in clinical decision-making.
  • FTGA differed significantly between SB and MLB dogs, suggesting anatomical variation influences MPL predisposition.
  • Dogs with MPL but with FTGA below threshold may not benefit from trochleoplasty, supporting individualized surgical planning.
  • CT provides more precise and reproducible evaluation of trochlear morphology than radiography or ultrasound.
  • The study introduces a CT protocol using P25 and P50 reference points for consistent FTGA measurement.

Longo

Veterinary Surgery

3

2023

Computed tomographic measurements of the femoral trochlea in dogs with and without medial patellar luxation

2023-3-VS-longo-4

Article Title: Computed tomographic measurements of the femoral trochlea in dogs with and without 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 Chik 2024 et al., on cholangioscopy feasibility, which factor most limited advancement of the 3.8 mm disposable endoscope into the common bile duct?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Anatomical flexure and endoscope diameter prevented deeper passage beyond the junction.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Flexure between the cystic and common bile duct.
Anatomical flexure and endoscope diameter prevented deeper passage beyond the junction.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Open transcholecystic cholangioscopy was feasible using a 3.8 mm disposable flexible endoscope in all 8 canine cadavers.
  • Visualization was consistently achieved up to the junction of the hepatic ducts, common bile duct, and cystic duct.
  • Advancement past the junction was limited by the endoscope diameter (3.8 mm) and anatomical flexure.
  • The 1.9 mm flexible ureteroscope could visualize the entire biliary tree, including the major duodenal papilla, in a large dog (43.8 kg).
  • Endoscopic tools (e.g., 3 Fr grasping forceps) could be passed through the working channel only after removing the irrigation line.
  • Standard biopsy forceps were incompatible with the disposable endoscope's 1.2 mm working channel.
  • Cadaver study showed no rupture, but clinical extrapolation is limited due to lack of diseased tissue.
  • Disposable endoscope setup cost (~$6,100) was significantly lower than traditional endoscopy systems (~$75,000–100,000), improving accessibility.

Chik

Veterinary Surgery

7

2024

Feasibility of open cholangioscopy with disposable flexible endoscopes

2024-7-VS-chik-2

Article Title: Feasibility of open cholangioscopy with disposable flexible endoscopes

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 Schroeder 2022 et al., on fascial anatomy mapping, which region is most prone to fascial disruption during resection?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The scapular spine has Type IV fascia, which is thin and adherent to bone, making it prone to disruption.
Incorrect. The correct answer is C. Over the scapular spine.
The scapular spine has Type IV fascia, which is thin and adherent to bone, making it prone to disruption.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Fascial planes in dogs were consistently classifiable into four surgical types:
  • Type I (discrete sheets), Type II (tightly adhered to thin muscle), Type III (tightly adhered to thick muscle), and Type IV (periosteum-associated).
  • Two junction types were identified: Type A (easily elevated) and Type B (higher risk of disruption).
  • Disruption-prone areas include the scapular spine (type IV fascia) and lateral thorax near the 13th rib, where rib resection may be needed to preserve margins.
  • The latissimus dorsi transition zones and fascial areas near the thoracic inlet and scapulohumeral joint were prone to fascial thinning or disruption.
  • Partial muscle resections or periosteal elevations may be required in areas with fragile fascia to maintain oncologic margins.
  • Dorsal spinous processes (T6–L6) showed type IV fascia; however, osteotomy may be needed in some dogs for clear margins.
  • Blended fascial transitions (e.g., rectus abdominis: type II cranially, type I caudally) necessitate intraoperative judgment on resection depth.
  • Cutaneous trunci may suffice as a deep margin for small, low-grade tumors in well-muscled dogs, but not reliably for high-grade or larger masses.

Schroeder

Veterinary Surgery

1

2022

Fascial plane mapping for superficial tumor resection in dogs. Part I: Neck and trunk

2022-1-VS-schroeder-2

Article Title: Fascial plane mapping for superficial tumor resection in dogs. Part I: Neck and trunk

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 Gomes 2025 et al., on subdural shunting for TL-AD, which modification was part of the surgical technique for SDS placement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The modified technique used a hemilaminectomy, longitudinal dural incision, and avoided suturing either the dura or the shunt tube.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Hemilaminectomy with longitudinal durotomy and no suturing of shunt or dura.
The modified technique used a hemilaminectomy, longitudinal dural incision, and avoided suturing either the dura or the shunt tube.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Modified subdural shunt (SDS) placement was adapted from prior techniques using a hemilaminectomy approach and no suturing of the dura or shunt.
  • Dogs receiving SDS had significantly better long-term outcomes (85.7% improved) compared to those with durotomy alone (41.7%).
  • Recurrence rate was lower in the SDS group (14.3%) than control (41.7%), though not statistically significant.
  • Most recurrences occurred in Pugs (5/7), suggesting a breed predisposition.
  • Shunt size was limited to 25% of spinal cord diameter, typically 3–3.5 Fr.
  • CSF flow through the shunt was confirmed intraoperatively, supporting the role of SDS in maintaining flow and possibly preventing recurrence.
  • Immediate postoperative outcomes were not different between groups (≈42% deteriorated), but long-term recovery was better with SDS.
  • Steroid use pre-surgery did not correlate with improved outcome; fewer SDS dogs received steroids pre-op.

Gomes

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement in dogs

2025-5-VS-gomes-1

Article Title: Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement 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 Nicolas 2024 et al., what spinal level was targeted using the lateral scapular osteotomy approach?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The novel lateral approach was used for a foraminal disc extrusion at T1–T2:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Incorrect. The correct answer is T1–T2.
The novel lateral approach was used for a foraminal disc extrusion at T1–T2:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • The lateral approach via scapular osteotomy allowed safe access to the T1-2 foramen in a French Bulldog with foraminal disc extrusion.
  • A mini-hemilaminectomy was performed, preserving articular facets.
  • The dog had no neurologic deficits postoperatively, returned to ambulation within 24 hours, and was discharged in 3 days.
  • At 10 months, CT confirmed excellent scapular healing and no recurrence.
  • Double 2.4-mm locking plates provided stable fixation across the scapular spine.
  • The technique avoided thoracic entry or dorsal spine dissection, suggesting a less invasive alternative for select T1-2 foraminal cases.

Nicolas

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

2024-2-VCOT-nicolas-1

Article Title: Scapular Osteotomy for Lateral Access to a T1-2 Foraminal Disc Extrusion, Treated by Mini-Hemilaminectomy in a Dog

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 Jones 2024 et al., on elbow OA cysts, which joints were most commonly affected by SBCs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 62% of SBCs were found in the humerus, making it the most affected site.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Humerus.
62% of SBCs were found in the humerus, making it the most affected site.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Sample: 38 Labrador Retrievers (76 elbows)
  • SBCs (subchondral bone cysts):
    • Not found in elbows without OA
  • Increased number and size with OA severity:
    • Grade 1: median 3 SBCs
    • Grade 2: 9 SBCs
    • Grade 3: 20 SBCs (p < .001)
    • Larger SBCs in more severe OA (OR = 1.056, p = .012)
  • Locations: 62% humerus, 28% ulna, 10% radius
  • Sex and Age Effects:
    • Older dogs had larger SBCs (p = .013)
    • Female dogs had smaller SBCs (p = .002)
    • SBC number unrelated to age or sex

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Evaluation of subchondral bone cysts in canine elbows with radiographic osteoarthritis secondary to elbow dysplasia

2024-2-VS-jones-2

Article Title: Evaluation of subchondral bone cysts in canine elbows with radiographic osteoarthritis secondary to elbow dysplasia

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: Anatomy & Surgical Approach
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.