Quiz Question

In Quitzan 2022 et al., on staple line configuration, what was concluded about the vertical staple line?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. No FEESA constructs leaked from the vertical staple line in the study.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No leakage occurred from this location.
No FEESA constructs leaked from the vertical staple line in the study.

🔍 Key Findings

  • All FEESA configurations leaked at lower pressures than intact segments, confirming reduced integrity vs. native tissue.
  • FEESA with 3-row transverse staples (3V/3T or 2V/3T) had significantly higher leak pressures than 2-row configurations.
  • 3V/3T configuration had the highest ILP (69.88 ± 21.23 mmHg) among all groups, significantly greater than 2V/2T and 3V/2T (P < .001).
  • Leakage consistently occurred at the transverse staple line (not vertical), regardless of configuration.
  • No significant difference in maximum intraluminal pressure (MIP) between FEESA groups.
  • All FEESA constructs withstood intraluminal pressures >25 mmHg, exceeding normal physiological jejunal pressure in dogs.
  • No leaks occurred from the vertical staple line, highlighting it as a more robust closure site.
  • Third staple row in transverse line may be a viable alternative to suture oversew, pending further clinical evaluation.

Quitzan

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Influence of staple line number and configuration on the leakage of small intestinal functional end-to-end stapled anastomosis: An ex vivo study

2022-5-VS-quitzan-5

Article Title: Influence of staple line number and configuration on the leakage of small intestinal functional end-to-end stapled anastomosis: An ex vivo 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 Tobias 2025 et al., on frontal sinus mucoceles, what was concluded about the role of guaifenesin in post-op management of mucoceles?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Guaifenesin was used in several cases to aid mucus clearance, but its efficacy in dogs remains undocumented.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Used to reduce mucus viscosity; benefit unproven.
Guaifenesin was used in several cases to aid mucus clearance, but its efficacy in dogs remains undocumented.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Frontal sinus mucoceles occurred in young dogs, often linked to prior skull trauma by 10 months of age.
  • All dogs presented with expansile, fluid-filled lesions causing facial swelling; CT showed multicentric bone erosion, including the frontal bone and cribriform plate.
  • Surgical options included frontal sinusotomy with either sinus lining ablation or re-establishment of nasofrontal drainage, with or without stenting.
  • Nasofrontal stenting led to long-term resolution in most dogs, although recurrence occurred in 4/8 dogs, requiring revision surgery in 3.
  • Complications were minor and included swelling or nasal discharge; no intraoperative complications were reported.
  • Histology confirmed sterile mucoceles with neutrophilic inflammation and mucin, and cultures were negative in all cases.
  • Guaifenesin was used postoperatively in several cases to reduce mucus viscosity; its benefit is unproven in dogs but may support drainage.

Tobias

Veterinary Surgery

6

2025

Clinical findings and outcomes of eight dogs with surgically treated frontal sinus mucoceles

2025-6-VS-tobias-5

Article Title: Clinical findings and outcomes of eight dogs with surgically treated frontal sinus mucoceles

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 Jones 2024 et al., on LEAP plate use, what was the most common type of complication reported postoperatively?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Seromas were the most frequently reported minor complication across both fracture types.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Seroma.
Seromas were the most frequently reported minor complication across both fracture types.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 62 fractures in 61 dogs (44 lateral condylar, 18 intracondylar); mostly Spaniels
  • LEAP plate used in all cases; minimal intraoperative contouring needed (1 French Bulldog)
  • Overall complication rate: ~33%, mostly minor; 1 amputation due to catastrophic infection
  • Radiographic healing:
    • Lateral epicondylar part healed in 100%
    • Condylar part healed in ~61.5% LCF and ~57.1% ICF
  • Functional outcomes:
    • 87% returned to full limb use
    • Median LOAD score: 2 for LCF, 6.5 for ICF
  • Design adjustments made post-study to strengthen weak zones around 3rd–4th screw holes

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures in Dogs

2024-4-VS-jones-2

Article Title: Clinical Assessment of a Lateral Epicondylar Anatomical Plate for the Stabilization of Humeral Condylar Fractures 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 Spies 2024 et al., on EHPSS in large dogs, what was the most common clinical sign at presentation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Lethargy was reported in 61.9% of dogs, making it the most common presenting clinical sign.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Lethargy.
Lethargy was reported in 61.9% of dogs, making it the most common presenting clinical sign.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 63 dogs ≥15 kg with single EHPSS were reviewed.
  • Most common breeds: Golden Retriever (28.6%), mixed breed (20.6%).
  • Most common shunt types: splenocaval (25.4%) and portocaval (25.4%).
  • 45 dogs received surgical attenuation; 18 were medically managed.
  • 6.7% (3/45) of surgically treated dogs died due to shunt-related complications; 22.2% (4/18) of medically managed dogs died.
  • Hypoplastic portal vein was noted in 52.9% of dogs where portal anatomy was described.
  • 37.5% of surviving attenuated dogs were weaned off all medical management.
  • Attenuated dogs had higher 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates (89%, 77%, 77%) than nonattenuated dogs (82%, 49%, 24%).

Spies

Veterinary Surgery

2

2024

Clinical presentation and short‐term outcomes of dogs ≥15 kg with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts

2024-2-VS-spies-5

Article Title: Clinical presentation and short‐term outcomes of dogs ≥15 kg with extrahepatic portosystemic shunts

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 Glenn 2024 et al., on client-based SSI surveillance, which of the following statements best describes Algorithm 1?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Algorithm 1 had the highest sensitivity (87.1%) and negative predictive value (97%), making it suitable for ruling out SSIs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It was best used to rule out SSIs.
Algorithm 1 had the highest sensitivity (87.1%) and negative predictive value (97%), making it suitable for ruling out SSIs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Algorithm 3 had the highest overall accuracy (95.5%) in diagnosing SSIs from client questionnaires.
  • Active surveillance identified 19.4% more SSIs compared to passive surveillance alone.
  • SSI rate was 8.22% across 754 surgeries; 33.9% of SSIs required revision surgery.
  • Client-based responses were 37.9% more frequent than those from referring veterinarians.
  • Deep/implant SSIs could be missed if not associated with visible wound healing problems.
  • Two late SSIs (after 90 days) occurred, both linked to implant surgeries.
  • Algorithm 1 was the most sensitive (87.1%) but less specific; useful for screening.
  • Algorithm 2 had the highest specificity (97.9%); useful as a “rule-in” diagnostic method.

Glenn

Veterinary Surgery

8

2024

Evaluation of a client questionnaire at diagnosing surgical site infections in an active surveillance system

2024-8-VS-glenn-3

Article Title: Evaluation of a client questionnaire at diagnosing surgical site infections in an active surveillance system

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 Smith 2025 et al., on bacterial cultures in TECA dehiscence what was the conclusion about using intraoperative cultures to guide treatment of dehiscence?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Cultures during TECA were not reliable predictors of pathogens at dehiscence and repeat cultures were recommended.
Incorrect. The correct answer is They were not predictive and new cultures should be performed.
Cultures during TECA were not reliable predictors of pathogens at dehiscence and repeat cultures were recommended.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 1 of 12 dogs (8.3%) cultured the same single organism (Staphylococcus schleiferi) at TECA and dehiscence sites.
  • In 58.3% (7/12), none of the bacteria from TECA cultures were found at dehiscence.
  • Staphylococcus spp. were isolated in 83.3% of dehiscence samples.
  • Methicillin resistance was high among Staphylococcus isolates: 80% at dehiscence.
  • Antibiotic susceptibility differed in 57% (4/7) of cases where the same bacteria were cultured at both time points.
  • TECA cultures were not predictive of bacteria at incisional dehiscence.
  • 75% of dogs healed with either medical or surgical management.

Recommendation: Repeat cultures at dehiscence to guide antibiotic therapy.

Smith

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Comparison of bacteria cultured during a total ear canal ablation and subsequent incisional dehiscence in 12 dogs

2025-3-VS-smith-2

Article Title: Comparison of bacteria cultured during a total ear canal ablation and subsequent incisional dehiscence in 12 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 Hanlon 2022 et al., on short screw sacroiliac fixation, how did screw positioning affect neurovascular safety?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All short screws were located lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding this risk entirely.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal.
All short screws were located lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding this risk entirely.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Two short screws (SLS or SPS) provided >2× peak load, yield load, and stiffness vs a single long screw (LLS) for SI joint stabilization.
  • No mechanical advantage was seen between the two short screw types (lag vs positional).
  • All short screws terminated lateral to the spinal canal, avoiding spinal impingement.
  • Ventral sacral foraminal impingement occurred in 3 short-screw cases (1 SPS, 2 SLS), all involving the caudal screw.
  • LLS group showed more abaxial displacement at osteotomy sites, suggesting inferior stabilization for concurrent pelvic fractures.
  • Short screw constructs had longer total screw length (48 mm) than LLS (40 mm), contributing to increased stiffness.
  • Positioning of caudal screw in a cranial/craniodorsal trajectory may help avoid nerve foraminal injury.
  • No significant difference in displacement at peak load among groups; stiffness and load capacity were the primary benefits.

Hanlon

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

2022-7-VS-hanlon-3

Article Title: Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws

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 Low 2024 et al., what was the most common minor postoperative complication observed?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Seromas were the most frequent minor complication (7 elbows):contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Seroma formation.
Seromas were the most frequent minor complication (7 elbows):contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 47 dogs (57 elbows) underwent TCS placement for HIF
  • Overall complication rate = 17.5%
    • Minor: seromas (7 elbows)
    • Major: septic arthritis (3 elbows) — all resolved with antibiotics
  • No screw failures, medial epicondylar fractures, or catastrophic outcomes noted
  • Long-term follow-up in 41 dogs (50 elbows):
    • 90% full function, 10% acceptable function
    • Mean follow-up = ~2.5 years
  • Increased age was significantly protective (p = 0.0051; OR = 0.61)
  • TCS placement method (freehand, guide, aiming device) significantly impacted screw angulation but not complication rate
  • Outcome not affected by presence of complications

Low

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

4

2024

Long-Term Outcome and Complications after Transcondylar Screw Placement for Canine Humeral Intracondylar Fissure

2024-4-VCOT-low-4

Article Title: Long-Term Outcome and Complications after Transcondylar Screw Placement for Canine Humeral Intracondylar Fissure

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 Danielski 2024 et al., on PUO effect on HIF, which of the following postoperative complication rates was reported for major HIF-related issues?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Four out of 51 elbows experienced major complications related to fissure healing (7.8%).
Incorrect. The correct answer is 7.8%.
Four out of 51 elbows experienced major complications related to fissure healing (7.8%).

🔍 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-3

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 Matz 2022 et al., on stapler size comparison, what is the clinical significance of the finding that all stapler groups had ILPs exceeding 25 mmHg?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study used 25 mmHg as a reference threshold; all stapler groups exceeded this, suggesting functional closure under physiological conditions.
Incorrect. The correct answer is They exceed normal intraluminal pressures in dogs.
The study used 25 mmHg as a reference threshold; all stapler groups exceeded this, suggesting functional closure under physiological conditions.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No significant difference in initial leak pressure (ILP) among TA 30 V3 2.5 mm, TA 60 3.5 mm, and TA 60 4.8 mm stapler sizes (P = .78).
  • All stapler types exceeded the physiological intraluminal pressure threshold (~25 mmHg), suggesting acceptable leak resistance.
  • Mean ILPs: TA 30 V3 (181.5 mmHg), TA 60 3.5 mm (112 mmHg), TA 60 4.8 mm (77.2 mmHg).
  • Leakage occurred at the staple line in 23 of 24 specimens; only one had ileal wall rupture.
  • No correlation found between ILP and cadaver weight, cecal wall thickness, or cecal length.
  • Cecal wall thickness averaged 4.9 mm, yet staple heights ranged only from 1.0–2.0 mm.
  • One specimen in each TA 60 group leaked near or below physiologic pressures, suggesting rare outliers.
  • Study supports clinical viability of all tested stapler sizes for canine typhlectomy, but highlights need for in vivo data on healing and complications.

Matz

Veterinary Surgery

4

2022

Ex vivo comparison of different thoracoabdominal stapler sizes for typhlectomy in canine cadavers

2022-4-VS-matz-4

Article Title: Ex vivo comparison of different thoracoabdominal stapler sizes for typhlectomy in canine cadavers

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: Infection
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.