Quiz Question

In Griffin 2025 et al., on SLN mapping with ICG, how was indocyanine green administered?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. ICG was injected with a 22G needle into tissue adjacent to the mass thoracoscopically.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Peritumoral injection under thoracoscopic guidance.
ICG was injected with a 22G needle into tissue adjacent to the mass thoracoscopically.

šŸ” 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-2

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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
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.

šŸ” 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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
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.

šŸ” 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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Radke 2022 et al., on outcome measure validation, which of the following OROMs demonstrated the **most rigorous development process** according to COSMIN criteria?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. COI was rated as ā€œadequateā€ for overall development, the highest rating among the instruments evaluated.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Canine Orthopedic Index (COI).
COI was rated as ā€œadequateā€ for overall development, the highest rating among the instruments evaluated.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • CBPI, COI, and LOAD are recommended for assessing canine osteoarthritis based on COSMIN criteria.
  • COI scored highest in development rigor and evidence quality among evaluated OROMs.
  • Internal consistency, reliability, and responsiveness were commonly validated, though no OROMs reported measurement error.
  • LOAD was considered formative, and internal consistency assessment was deemed unnecessary.
  • CBPI and COI showed sufficient internal consistency, but CBPI’s factor structure was inconsistent across studies.
  • All 6 evaluated OROMs (CBPI, COI, LOAD, BHSII, HCPI, HVAS) were quick to complete (under 5 min).
  • Three tools—BHSII, HCPI, HVAS—need more evidence before recommendation; only CBPI, COI, and LOAD are Category A (recommended).
  • Future studies should assess interpretability, including measurement error and clinically meaningful change scores (MIC, SDC).

Radke

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Evidence‐based evaluation of owner‐reported outcome measures for canine orthopedic care – a COSMIN evaluation of 6 instruments

2022-2-VS-radke-1

Article Title: Evidence‐based evaluation of owner‐reported outcome measures for canine orthopedic care – a COSMIN evaluation of 6 instruments

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Moreira 2024 et al., what was a key methodological tool used for simulation of all osteotomy types?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All models used individualized CT-based reconstructions to simulate osteotomies in silico.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Patient-specific 3D CT reconstructions.
All models used individualized CT-based reconstructions to simulate osteotomies in silico.

2024-1-VS-moreira-5

Article Title:

Journal:

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Philips 2025 et al., on radiographic IAIP detection, which implant direction was more likely to be misclassified as penetrating the joint?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle were misclassified more often (23.8%).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Lateral condyle at āˆ’2 mm.
Implants directed toward the lateral tibial condyle were misclassified more often (23.8%).

šŸ” 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-4

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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Isono 2025 et al., on tibial malalignment in MPL, what clinical advantage does PTMTA provide over TTA in preoperative assessment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Unlike TTA, PTMTA can be visually estimated during palpation, improving clinical utility.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It can be assessed visually during palpation.
Unlike TTA, PTMTA can be visually estimated during palpation, improving clinical utility.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Proximal Tibia Metatarsal Angle (PTMTA) was significantly increased in dogs with grade 3 and 4 MPL, making it a useful marker for severity.
  • PTMTA strongly correlated with Tibial Torsion Angle (TTA) (r = 0.733) and Crural Rotation Angle (CRA) (r = 0.643), integrating multiple morphological deformities.
  • Grade 4 MPL cases showed significant internal tibial torsion, increased mMPTA, and decreased MDTT/PTW—indicating both rotation and medial displacement.
  • DTMTA was significantly more negative in grade 4, indicating a consistent pattern of internal foot rotation with disease severity.
  • PTMTA can be visually assessed during palpation, offering preoperative utility without CT.
  • Among toy poodles, PTMTA showed significant differences even between grades 3 and normal, suggesting breed-specific severity patterns.
  • Corrective osteotomy may need to address tibial as well as femoral deformities in severe MPL cases with high PTMTA.
  • Younger dogs with grade 4 MPL had more severe deformities, possibly due to early onset or developmental progression.

Isono

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

Tibial Torsion Malalignment in Small Dogs with Medial Patellar Luxation

2025-4-VCOT-isono-3

Article Title: Tibial Torsion Malalignment in Small Dogs with Medial Patellar Luxation

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Moore 2023 et al., on Divisional outcomes in canine liver mass resection, which liver division was most commonly affected by liver masses in dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 58% of liver masses were located in the left division.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Left.
58% of liver masses were located in the left division.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Liver masses were most common in the left division (58%), followed by central (27%) and right (15%).
  • Right divisional masses were significantly associated with intraoperative complications (33% vs 5.6% left, p = .0037), particularly hemorrhage and injury to major vessels.
  • Mortality rate was 6.5% overall, with no significant association with liver lobe location.
  • Postoperative complications occurred in 28.7% of cases, but were not significantly associated with mass location.
  • Thoracic incision extension (sternotomy or diaphragmotomy) increased odds of postoperative complications by 9.1x (p < .001).
  • Use of TA stapler significantly reduced both intraoperative (OR 19x lower) and postoperative complications (OR 4.4x lower) vs other methods.
  • Specialist surgeons and heavier dogs had significantly fewer postoperative complications.
  • Right lobectomies often required thoracic extension, indirectly linking them to increased postoperative morbidity.

Moore

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

Association between divisional location and short-term outcome of liver mass resection in 124 dogs

2023-4-VS-moore-1

Article Title: Association between divisional location and short-term outcome of liver mass resection in 124 dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

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.

šŸ” 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?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

In Peng 2025 et al., on BOAS clinical grading, … what characterizes a Grade 2 RFG score?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Grade 2 indicates clinical signs with noise audible without a stethoscope and some post-exercise signs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Moderate noise audible without stethoscope and post-exercise dyspnea.
Grade 2 indicates clinical signs with noise audible without a stethoscope and some post-exercise signs.

šŸ” Key Findings

  • Remote respiratory function grading (RFG) had poor to moderate reliability compared to in-person assessment.
  • Expert graders had higher agreement with in-person scores than novices (Cohen’s kappa 0.37–0.48 vs. 0.21–0.47).
  • Interobserver agreement was moderate among experts (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.59) and poor among novices (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.39).
  • Remote recordings suffered from background noise, short clip durations, and technical limitations of electronic stethoscope recordings.
  • Final RFG scores were based on the highest grade across categories (respiratory noise, inspiratory effort, dyspnea/cyanosis/syncope).
  • Clinical impact: Only in-person grading reliably supports decisions for surgical intervention or breeding restrictions.

Peng

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Comparison of remote and in-person respiratory function grading of brachycephalic dogs

2025-3-VS-peng1-4

Article Title: Comparison of remote and in-person respiratory function grading of brachycephalic dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

šŸ”„100% would expect this on the real thing

šŸ¤”Useful, but not core exam material

šŸ—‘ļøNot relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
ā€
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
ā€
Mind trying that again?

Quiz Results

Topic: Imaging & Decision-Making
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

āŒ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

āœ… 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.