Quiz Question

In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, how did implants placed 2 mm into the joint perform in terms of accurate classification?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Implants placed 2 mm into the joint were correctly classified in 97.2% of cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 97.2% correct.
Implants placed 2 mm into the joint were correctly classified in 97.2% of cases.

🔍 Key Findings

Overall accuracy of radiography to detect IAIP: 77.9%

Sensitivity: 97.2%
Specificity: 67.6%

False positive rate: 32.4% of non-penetrating implants were misclassified as penetrating

Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle had higher misclassification (23.8%) than medial (8.3%)

Most accurate detection: Implants placed 2 mm into the joint (97.2% correct classification)

Least agreement: For implants placed at 0 mm (subchondral level), especially lateral (AC1 = 0.48)

No palpable abnormalities (e.g., crepitus) observed during ROM for any group

No significant difference in detection by specialty field or reviewer qualification

Suggests radiographic misclassification risk and supports considering CT/fluoroscopy in equivocal cases

Philips

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric study

2025-3-VS-philips-5

Article Title: Detection of intra‐articular implant penetration of the canine stifle with radiography: A cadaveric 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 Nash 2024 et al., on GER frequency, what was the upper reference limit for distal GER events per hour?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. An upper reference limit of 2.4 distal GER events per hour was established based on 35 healthy dogs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 2.4.
An upper reference limit of 2.4 distal GER events per hour was established based on 35 healthy dogs.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Population: 35 nonbrachycephalic dogs undergoing orthopedic procedures (TPLO)
  • Study design: Prospective observational using transnasal Digitrapper dual-sensor pH probe after short TIVA
  • Upper reference limits:
    • Distal GER events per hour: 2.4
    • Proximal GER events per hour: 0.4
    • Cumulative distal acid exposure: 2.3%
    • Cumulative proximal acid exposure: 0%
  • Median values (normal):
    • Distal GER events per hour: 0.3
    • Proximal GER events per hour: 0
  • Proximal GER observed in 12/31 dogs
  • No regurgitation observed in any dog
  • No major adverse events with probe use
  • Clinical implication: These parameters provide a reference for assessing excessive GER in future canine surgical cases

Nash

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Esophageal pH‐monitoring in nonbrachycephalic dogs; a reference

2024-1-VS-nash-1

Article Title: Esophageal pH‐monitoring in nonbrachycephalic dogs; a reference

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 Nash 2024 et al., on proximal GER, what was the upper reference limit for cumulative proximal esophageal acid exposure?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No proximal acid exposure was expected in healthy dogs, setting the upper reference limit at 0%.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0%.
No proximal acid exposure was expected in healthy dogs, setting the upper reference limit at 0%.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Population: 35 nonbrachycephalic dogs undergoing orthopedic procedures (TPLO)
  • Study design: Prospective observational using transnasal Digitrapper dual-sensor pH probe after short TIVA
  • Upper reference limits:
    • Distal GER events per hour: 2.4
    • Proximal GER events per hour: 0.4
    • Cumulative distal acid exposure: 2.3%
    • Cumulative proximal acid exposure: 0%
  • Median values (normal):
    • Distal GER events per hour: 0.3
    • Proximal GER events per hour: 0
  • Proximal GER observed in 12/31 dogs
  • No regurgitation observed in any dog
  • No major adverse events with probe use
  • Clinical implication: These parameters provide a reference for assessing excessive GER in future canine surgical cases

Nash

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Esophageal pH‐monitoring in nonbrachycephalic dogs; a reference

2024-1-VS-nash-5

Article Title: Esophageal pH‐monitoring in nonbrachycephalic dogs; a reference

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 Larose 2024 et al., on fluorescence cholangiography, what timing of fluorescence onset was typical after ICG administration?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Regardless of dose, biliary fluorescence began within 10–20 minutes.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 10–20 minutes post-injection.
Regardless of dose, biliary fluorescence began within 10–20 minutes.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography (NIRFC) was feasible and safe in all healthy dogs studied, with no major adverse effects noted.
  • Low-dose ICG (0.05 mg/kg) at 3 h pre-op achieved the highest target-to-background (cystic duct-to-liver) contrast ratio, reaching nearly 4:1 at 280 minutes.
  • Early imaging (time 0) favored low-dose ICG for optimal cystic duct visualization; high-dose ICG led to excessive liver fluorescence and reduced contrast.
  • Visualization of biliary tree occurred within 10–20 min post-injection regardless of dose, but longer delays improved background clearance and contrast.
  • No significant cardiovascular or histamine-related side effects were observed with either dose of ICG.
  • Repeated ICG injections showed minimal residual fluorescence when using a >72 h washout period; shorter intervals caused mild carryover in high-dose groups.
  • Surgeon scoring matched contrast ratios, confirming clinical relevance of imaging outcomes.
  • Recommended dose for laparoscopic imaging: 0.05 mg/kg ICG given 3–5 h before surgery, or at premedication for urgent cases.

Larose

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography in dogs: A pilot study

2024-4-VS-larose2-3

Article Title: Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography in dogs: A pilot 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 Knudsen 2024 et al., on CTA diagnostic accuracy, what was the combined sensitivity and specificity range in the second reading?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The article reported sums of sensitivity and specificity of approximately 1.8 in the second reading, indicating clinically useful performance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 1.6–1.9.
The article reported sums of sensitivity and specificity of approximately 1.8 in the second reading, indicating clinically useful 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-1

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 Healy 2025 et al., on incidental PBBs, what was the observed rate of spontaneous pneumothorax in dogs during follow-up?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. None of the 30 dogs with incidental PBBs developed clinical SP during a median 1255-day follow-up.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0%.
None of the 30 dogs with incidental PBBs developed clinical SP during a median 1255-day follow-up.

🔍 Key Findings

Population: 2,178 canine CTs reviewed retrospectively.
Prevalence: Incidental PBBs found in 1.37% (30/2178).
Outcome: None of the dogs with incidental PBBs developed clinical spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) over a median follow-up of 1255 days.
Significant Associations:

  • Age: Dogs with PBBs were significantly older (median 10.5 yrs vs. 8.2 yrs, p = .001).
  • CT indication: PBBs more likely during neoplastic staging (p = .006).

PBB Characteristics:

  • Total = 60 PBBs (median 1/dog; range 1–7).
  • Location: 35% in left caudal, 31.6% right caudal, only 13.3% in right cranial lobe.
  • Size-based: 25 bullae (>10 mm), 35 blebs (≤10 mm).

Conclusion: Prophylactic resection of incidental PBBs not justified given no observed SP risk in this population.

Healy

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Significance of incidentally identified bullae and blebs on thoracic computed tomography and prevalence of subsequent pneumothorax in dogs

2025-1-VS-healy-2

Article Title: Significance of incidentally identified bullae and blebs on thoracic computed tomography and prevalence of subsequent pneumothorax 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 Holman 2024 et al., on lateral arthroscopy of the canine shoulder, what percentage of the medial glenohumeral ligament’s cranial border was visible?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 58% of the cranial arm of the medial glenohumeral ligament was within view during standard arthroscopy.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 58%.
58% of the cranial arm of the medial glenohumeral ligament was within view during standard arthroscopy.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 48% of the intra-articular biceps tendon was visible at a standing angle; this increased to 63% in flexion (p = 0.0003).
  • 58% of the medial glenohumeral ligament's cranial border was within view.
  • 20% of the subscapularis tendon was visualized via the standard lateral arthroscopic approach.
  • Visibility was assessed using tattoo ink markers and confirmed via dissection in cadavers.
  • Limitations of standard lateral portals may lead to underdiagnosis of deeper or distal pathology in these structures.

Holman

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Quantification of the Field of View for Standard Lateral Arthroscopy of the Canine Shoulder

2024-1-VCOT-holman-3

Article Title: Quantification of the Field of View for Standard Lateral Arthroscopy of the Canine Shoulder

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 Klever 2024 et al., what effect does a dorsoventral projection have on Norberg angle measurements?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Dorsoventral projection increased Norberg angle by 3.2–5.8%, potentially overestimating joint congruity
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increases angle by 3–6%.
Dorsoventral projection increased Norberg angle by 3.2–5.8%, potentially overestimating joint congruity

🔍 Key Findings

  • Dorsoventral radiographs artificially increase Norberg angle values by 3.2–5.8% and should be excluded.
  • Lateral pelvic tilt >2° causes asymmetric changes in Norberg angle; >3° results in significant side-specific changes.
  • Cranioventral-to-caudodorsal tilt >10° results in obvious radiographic tilt, but changes Norberg angle by only ~2%.
  • Tilted but subjectively acceptable images have minor impact and may still be usable for screening.
  • Norberg angle readings differed consistently between left/right hips — possibly due to operator handedness.

Klever

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Influence of Femoral Position and Pelvic Projection on Norberg Angle Measurements

2024-1-VCOT-klever-1

Article Title: Influence of Femoral Position and Pelvic Projection on Norberg Angle Measurements

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 Mattioli 2025 et al., on lymphadenectomy complications, which lymph node sites were associated with a higher complication rate when surgery exceeded 21.5 minutes?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Mandibular and retropharyngeal lymphadenectomies lasting more than 21.5 minutes were associated with higher complication rates.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Mandibular and retropharyngeal.
Mandibular and retropharyngeal lymphadenectomies lasting more than 21.5 minutes were associated with higher complication rates.

🔍 Key Findings

Sample: 201 lymphadenectomies in 163 dogs.
Intraoperative techniques:

  • Unassisted: 36%
  • Methylene blue (MB): 24%
  • Gamma probe + MB (γ-MB): 40%

Complication rate: 7.5% overall (93% uncomplicated)

  • 80% were mild, 20% moderate; no severe complications
  • Most common = seroma (2.5%), lymphoedema (1.5%)

Risk factors (via decision tree model):

  • Surgical time > 21.5 min
  • Lymph node site = mandibular or retropharyngeal

No significant difference in complication rate based on:

  • Guidance technique (p = .255)
  • LN palpability, number removed, or LN size

Clinical implication: Peripheral SLN excision is safe regardless of intraoperative technique; certain sites and durations carry slightly higher risk.

Mattioli

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Peripheral sentinel lymphadenectomy in 163 dogs: Postoperative surgical complications and comparison between intraoperative dissection techniques

2025-4-VS-mattioli-3

Article Title: Peripheral sentinel lymphadenectomy in 163 dogs: Postoperative surgical complications and comparison between intraoperative dissection techniques

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 García 2025 et al., on TIAS shunt confirmation, which imaging method was NOT required during the procedure?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. TIAS used only ultrasound; fluoroscopy and CTA were not needed for intraoperative guidance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Fluoroscopy.
TIAS used only ultrasound; fluoroscopy and CTA were not needed for intraoperative guidance.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 40 dogs with congenital EHPSS were surgically treated using intraoperative transsplenic injection of agitated saline (TIAS) to assess full temporary occlusion.
  • TIAS was successful in 38/40 dogs; the remaining 2 had additional shunting vessels not originally seen and required further identification/ligation.
  • No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred.
  • TIAS allowed real-time confirmation of attenuation success using ultrasound-visible microbubbles.
  • Median postoperative bile acids were 5 μmol/L (preprandial) and 25 μmol/L (postprandial).
  • Long-term outcomes: 29/39 dogs had excellent, 10/39 had good outcomes; 3 dogs died unrelated to EHPSS.
  • Technique is presented as a safe, quick, low-cost, accessible intraoperative assessment alternative to IOMP or SP.

Garcia

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Use of intraoperative transsplenic injection of agitated saline to confirm temporary full attenuation of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs

2025-2-VS-garcia-4

Article Title: Use of intraoperative transsplenic injection of agitated saline to confirm temporary full attenuation of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts 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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Imaging & Decision-Making
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.