Quiz Question

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 Mazdarani 2022 et al., on CBLO and stifle biomechanics, when did cranial tibial translation (CTT) occur after CBLO **without** hamstring loading?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CBLO eliminated CTT at all angles **except 140°** in the absence of hamstring load.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Only at 140°.
CBLO eliminated CTT at all angles **except 140°** in the absence of hamstring load.

🔍 Key Findings

  • CBLO reduced tibial plateau angle (TPA) from a mean of 28.1° to 9.7°, aligning with its goal of flattening the tibial slope.
  • CBLO eliminated cranial tibial translation (CTT) following CCL transection and meniscal release at all angles except 140° without hamstring load.
  • Hamstring loading (20% quadriceps load) significantly reduced or delayed the onset of CTT, improving stifle stability.
  • Medial meniscus was confirmed as a secondary stabilizer; its release (MMR) caused more CTT than CCLx alone.
  • PTA (patellar tendon angle) increased with joint extension; CBLO shifted the PTA curve lower and parallel to intact values, suggesting effective flexion of the joint.
  • Combined CBLO and hamstring loading resulted in the most stable joints, especially from 50° to 135° joint angles.
  • Residual CTT occurred in CBLO-only limbs at higher extension angles (e.g., 140°), but hamstring load mitigated this.
  • Stifle stability post-CBLO is multifactorial, depending on joint angle, meniscal integrity, and hamstring activation.

Mazdarani

Veterinary Surgery

6

2022

Effect of center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy on ex vivo stifle joint stability following cranial cruciate ligament transection and medial meniscal release with and without a hamstring load

2022-6-VS-mazdarani-2

Article Title: Effect of center of rotation of angulation‐based leveling osteotomy on ex vivo stifle joint stability following cranial cruciate ligament transection and medial meniscal release with and without a hamstring load

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 Duffy 2022 et al., on barbed suture oversew, what was the **most common leakage site** among all FEESA groups regardless of suture type?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Over 80% of leakage in all groups occurred at the anastomotic crotch, not staple lines or suture holes.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Crotch of the anastomosis.
Over 80% of leakage in all groups occurred at the anastomotic crotch, not staple lines or suture holes.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Oversewing the transverse staple line using barbed suture showed no difference in initial (ILP) or maximum leakage pressure (MLP) compared to monofilament suture (p = .439 and .644).
  • Barbed suture repairs were ~18% faster (25 seconds faster; p < .001) than monofilament suture.
  • No difference was found between unidirectional and bidirectional barbed sutures in leakage resistance or repair time (p = .697).
  • Mean ILP and MLP were significantly higher in control jejunal segments (6.6x and 5.1x greater respectively; p < .001).
  • Leakage consistently occurred at the crotch of the FEESA in all oversew groups (>80%), not the staple line.
  • All oversewn techniques leaked at supraphysiologic pressures, indicating clinical safety against in vivo leakage.
  • No leakage was observed from barbed suture holes, addressing concerns of tissue trauma due to barb design.
  • The study supports barbed suture as a viable alternative to conventional monofilament suture for FEESA oversew in dogs.

Duffy

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Influence of barbed suture oversew of the transverse staple line during functional end-to-end stapled anastomosis in a canine jejunal enterectomy model

2022-5-VS-duffy-2

Article Title: Influence of barbed suture oversew of the transverse staple line during functional end-to-end stapled anastomosis in a canine jejunal enterectomy model

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 surgical technique mortality, which factor besides surgical technique was independently associated with increased mortality?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Stage II or III laryngeal collapse had an OR of 4.6 for mortality (p = .002).
Incorrect. The correct answer is High-grade laryngeal collapse.
Stage II or III laryngeal collapse had an OR of 4.6 for mortality (p = .002).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Study compared 606 dogs (English Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, Pugs) undergoing partial staphylectomy via CO₂ laser, bipolar vessel sealing device (BVSD), or conventional incision.
  • Mortality rate: 4.0% (24/606).
  • BVSD was associated with significantly increased perioperative mortality compared to other methods (OR = 6.0, 95% CI: 1.3–28.4, p = .023).
  • High-grade laryngeal collapse (stage II or III) independently increased mortality risk (OR = 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8–11.8, p = .002).
  • No difference in mortality between CO₂ laser and conventional incision techniques.
  • CO₂ laser and conventional techniques had similar complication rates.

Jones

Veterinary Surgery

1

2024

Comparison of mortality of brachycephalic dogs undergoing partial staphylectomy using conventional incisional, carbon dioxide laser, or bipolar vessel sealing device

2024-1-VS-jones-3

Article Title: Comparison of mortality of brachycephalic dogs undergoing partial staphylectomy using conventional incisional, carbon dioxide laser, or bipolar vessel sealing device

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 Fracka 2024 et al., on perioperative risk factors, which surgical technique was associated with a significantly higher odds of complicated recovery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Staphylectomy was associated with a 59-fold increased risk of complications compared to FFP (p = .0002).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Staphylectomy.
Staphylectomy was associated with a 59-fold increased risk of complications compared to FFP (p = .0002).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Staphylectomy was linked to higher risk of complicated recovery than folded flap palatoplasty (OR = 59.29, p = .0002).
  • Laryngeal collapse > Grade 2 was strongly associated with poor recovery (OR = 97.13, p < .0001).
  • Longer general anesthesia duration increased the risk of complications (OR = 1.01 per min, p = .0051).
  • Increasing age significantly raised the odds of perioperative complication (OR = 1.04 per month, p = .0113).
  • History of aspiration pneumonia was only found in dogs with complications, though not in final model due to instability.
  • Complicated recovery included >12 h O₂ therapy, tracheostomy, or death.
  • FFP may reduce pharyngeal-laryngeal edema, possibly improving immediate outcomes.
  • Bulldogs comprised 80% of population, with French Bulldogs most common (63%).

Fracka

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Risk factors for complicated perioperative recovery in dogs undergoing staphylectomy or folded flap palatoplasty: Seventy-six cases (2018–2022)

2024-4-VS-fracka-1

Article Title: Risk factors for complicated perioperative recovery in dogs undergoing staphylectomy or folded flap palatoplasty: Seventy-six cases (2018–2022)

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 may offer benefit when paired with thoracic duct ligation (TDL)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. ILR improves efficiency and could facilitate simultaneous TDL.
Incorrect. The correct answer is ILR.
ILR improves efficiency and could facilitate simultaneous TDL.

🔍 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-5

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?

In Evers 2023 et al., on needle arthroscopy, what was observed about morbidity following needle arthroscopy?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Lameness scores did not change post-procedure (*P = .25*), indicating excellent tolerance.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No measurable morbidity.
Lameness scores did not change post-procedure (*P = .25*), indicating excellent tolerance.

🔍 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-5

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 Galliano 2022 et al., on vascular access ports, what was the reported functionality rate of ports placed in the femoral/external iliac vein (fSVAP)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 4 dogs with fSVAP had fully functional ports during follow-up.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 100%.
All 4 dogs with fSVAP had fully functional ports during follow-up.

🔍 Key Findings

  • SVAPs placed in axillary (aSVAP) or femoral/external iliac veins (fSVAP) during limb amputation remained functional in 92.3% and 100% of cases, respectively.
  • Complication rates were lower in aSVAP (23.1%) and fSVAP (0%) compared to jSVAP (47.4%), although not statistically significant (P = .12).
  • No catastrophic complications occurred with aSVAP or fSVAP; 2 deaths occurred with jSVAP due to port-related issues.
  • Infection-related port removal was needed in 1 aSVAP (7.7%) and 2 jSVAPs (10.5%) — no removals were required in fSVAPs.
  • Tip placement of the catheter (e.g., right atrium vs. vena cava) did not correlate with complications (P = .66).
  • Shorter surgical time likely with aSVAP/fSVAP as they use the same surgical field as the limb amputation.
  • Survival time median was similar across groups (jSVAP: 177 days, aSVAP: 125 days, fSVAP: 122 days).
  • SVAP implantation during limb amputation offers a practical and safe alternative to separate jugular placement.

Galliano

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Subcutaneous vascular access port implantation in the axillary or femoral/external iliac vein at the time of full limb amputation in dogs

2022-7-VS-galliano-1

Article Title: Subcutaneous vascular access port implantation in the axillary or femoral/external iliac vein at the time of full limb amputation 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 Viitanen 2023 et al., on zygomatic sialoadenectomy, what was a cited benefit of intraoral approach in terms of postoperative management?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. IOA caused minimal external trauma, eliminating the need for E-collar in all clinical cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No need for Elizabethan collar.
IOA caused minimal external trauma, eliminating the need for E-collar in all clinical cases.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Intraoral approach (IOA) reduced surgical time compared to lateral orbitotomy (median: 42.0 vs 65.7 minutes, p = .005)
  • Ease of closure (Stage III) was better with IOA (p < .001), though gland removal (Stage II) was easier with LOA (p = .039)
  • Complete gland removal was achieved in 8/10 IOA vs 10/10 LOA cases in cadaveric study
  • All 3 clinical cases had uneventful recoveries post-IOA, including one carcinoma, with no intra- or short-term postoperative complications
  • LOA had superior surgical exposure, but was more invasive and time-consuming
  • IOA posed greater difficulty in complete gland removal in brachycephalic dogs, with remnant tissue noted in 2/10 cadavers
  • IOA avoids osteotomy, reducing potential complications like delayed union and postoperative pain
  • Cosmetic outcomes and healing were better with IOA, and no E-collar was required postoperatively

Viitanen

Veterinary Surgery

2

2023

Intraoral approach for zygomatic sialoadenectomy in dogs: An anatomical study and three clinical cases

2023-2-VS-viitanen-3

Article Title: Intraoral approach for zygomatic sialoadenectomy in dogs: An anatomical study and three clinical cases

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 Adrian 2024 et al., on feline pelvic fracture stabilization, what was the most commonly reported outcome according to the FMPI?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. FMPI results showed all 18 cats with follow-up had full function, with low pain scores.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Full function with minimal or no pain.
FMPI results showed all 18 cats with follow-up had full function, with low pain scores.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 20 cats with pelvic fractures treated with SOP plates and cortical screws
  • Full function reported in all patients per FMPI follow-up
  • Screw loosening in 3/20 SOP cases; implant removal in 3 cats
  • Median sacral index decrease at follow-up: 5.7%; mostly mild narrowing
  • Complications: 5 major (3 SOP removals, 2 trochanter osteotomy issues); 20 minor
  • SOP plate shown feasible even in challenging configurations; good functional outcomes

Adrian

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

Use of Locking Plates Fixed with Cortical Screws for Pelvic Fracture Repair in 20 Cats

2024-1-VCOT-adrian-1

Article Title: Use of Locking Plates Fixed with Cortical Screws for Pelvic Fracture Repair in 20 Cats

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?

Quiz Results

Topic: Postoperative Care & Outcomes
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.