Quiz Question

In Murphy 2024 et al., what was the overall prevalence of contralateral CCLR in dogs ≥8 years and ≥15kg?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Contralateral CCLR occurred in 159/831 dogs, or 19.1%, lower than prior reports of 33–48% prevalence.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 19.1%.
Contralateral CCLR occurred in 159/831 dogs, or 19.1%, lower than prior reports of 33–48% prevalence.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Prevalence of contralateral CCLR in dogs ≥8 years and ≥15kg was 19.1%, notably lower than previous studies (33–50%).
  • Median time to contralateral CCLR was 12.9 months.
  • Older age reduced risk — 2% decrease per month of age (p=0.003).
  • Golden Retrievers and Labradors had significantly lower risk (p=0.028 and p=0.007, respectively).
  • No effect found from TPA, meniscal injury, or comorbidities (e.g., hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism).

Murphy

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2024

The Prevalence and Risk Factors of Contralateral Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Medium-to-Large (≥15kg) Breed Dogs 8 Years of Age or Older

2024-1-VCOT-murphy-1

Article Title: The Prevalence and Risk Factors of Contralateral Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Medium-to-Large (≥15kg) Breed Dogs 8 Years of Age or Older

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 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 Anderson 2025 et al., on liver hemostatic agents, what was the time to 50% hemostasis for the AG group?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Time to 50% hemostasis was 2:00 in AG vs. 4:49 in PC, demonstrating more rapid effect with the AG sponge.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 2 minutes 00 seconds.
Time to 50% hemostasis was 2:00 in AG vs. 4:49 in PC, demonstrating more rapid effect with the AG sponge.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Study Design: Prospective, randomized clinical trial of 45 dogs undergoing liver biopsy or lobectomy.
  • Groups:
    • Adhesive gelatin sponge (AG) group (n=22)
    • Plain collagen sponge (PC) group (n=23)
  • Main Results:
    • At 5 minutes post-application, 10/20 PC dogs were still bleeding vs. 2/20 AG dogs (p = 0.0138).
    • AG had significantly better adhesion scores (median 2 vs. 1, p < 0.001).
    • Sponge dislodgement: 5/23 in PC group, 0/22 in AG group (p = 0.042).
    • Time to 50% hemostasis: AG = 2 min, PC = 4 min 49 sec.
  • Complications: No adverse events related to either sponge.
  • Conclusion: Adhesive gelatin sponges offered superior intraoperative adhesion and hemostatic control during canine liver surgery compared to collagen sponges.

Anderson

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

A randomized comparison of an adhesive gelatin sponge and a plain collagen sponge for hemostatic control during canine liver surgery

2025-2-VS-anderson1-4

Article Title: A randomized comparison of an adhesive gelatin sponge and a plain collagen sponge for hemostatic control during canine liver surgery

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 Cherzan 2023 et al., on subcutaneous mast cell tumors, what was the median disease-free interval (DFI) for dogs with lymph node metastasis from subcutaneous mast cell tumors?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Lymph node metastasis significantly reduced DFI to a median of 194 days.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 194 days.
Lymph node metastasis significantly reduced DFI to a median of 194 days.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Local recurrence occurred in 17.8% of dogs, and was associated with significantly decreased survival (551 vs 1722 days, p = .0038).
  • Lymph node metastasis occurred in 26.7% of dogs and was significantly associated with shorter disease-free interval (194 vs not reached, p = .0012) and lower survival (551 vs 1722 days, p = .043).
  • Mitotic index >7 was significantly associated with higher recurrence (80% vs 22.5%, p = .02), shorter DFI (139 vs not reached days, p < .001), and shorter survival (247 vs 1722 days, p = .05).
  • Infiltrative growth pattern was associated with shorter DFI (268 vs 1864 days, p = .011), but not with survival or recurrence.
  • Incomplete margins (≤1 mm) were not significantly associated with recurrence (p = .085), but did correlate with shorter DFI (p = .043).
  • Chemotherapy or radiation therapy was associated with shorter DFI and survival, likely due to selection bias for more aggressive disease.
  • Tumor size >3 cm was associated with decreased survival (p = .031), but not with recurrence or DFI.
  • Multinucleation and necrosis were not associated with prognosis outcomes.

Cherzan

Veterinary Surgery

4

2023

Factors affecting prognosis in canine subcutaneous mast cell tumors: 45 cases

2023-4-VS-cherzan-2

Article Title: Factors affecting prognosis in canine subcutaneous mast cell tumors: 45 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 Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, what was the functional outcome in all dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All dogs returned to full function, including high-performance sports in some cases.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Returned to full function.
All dogs returned to full function, including high-performance sports in some cases.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Case series of 6 shoulders in 5 working/sporting dogs. Conditions treated: 3 partial biceps ruptures, 3 luxations with fraying.
  • All treated with biceps tenodesis using a bioabsorbable anchor (Weldix 2.3 mm).
  • All dogs returned to function (some to high-level sports); lameness resolved within 1–5 weeks.
  • No implant-related complications with anchor-only cases. One dog had seroma and later infection but recovered.
  • Tendon clamp (used in 2 cases) caused irritation in one dog → resolved after removal.
  • CT follow-up confirmed integrity; drill holes filled with bone.
  • Median LOAD score: 12; higher in older dogs or with concurrent conditions.
  • Authors suggest tenodesis offers more stability and faster return to function than tenotomy in working dogs.
  • Larger, controlled studies are recommended.

Schuenemann

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Biceps tenodesis with a bioabsorbable bone anchor using BoneWelding technology: Results in six clinical cases (5 dogs)

2025-4-VS-schuenemann-2

Article Title: Biceps tenodesis with a bioabsorbable bone anchor using BoneWelding technology: Results in six clinical cases (5 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 Huels 2025 et al., on second-generation screw cup THA, what was the primary functional outcome observed in dogs following SCSL THA?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 26 out of 30 hips had full functional recovery, including one revised for stem subsidence.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Full recovery in most hips.
26 out of 30 hips had full functional recovery, including one revised for stem subsidence.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Total complication rate was 16.7%, with 5/30 hips experiencing major complications, mostly related to the femoral component.
  • Cup-associated complications were rare (3.3%), with only one case of acetabular cup luxation attributed to surgical technique rather than implant failure.
  • No cases of late aseptic loosening were observed during a median follow-up of 17.5 months.
  • Implant stability was attributed to the SCSL's porous, trabecular titanium surface, enhancing osseointegration.
  • Three femoral stem fractures occurred in a single dog, leading to implant removal; material testing was not performed.
  • Most complications were femoral in origin (6/7), not acetabular, suggesting improved performance of the SCSL.
  • Explantation rate was 13% (4/30), but some removals were due to owner preference against revision.
  • Subjective functional outcome was full recovery in 26/30 hips, including one with successful revision of stem subsidence.

Huels

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

2

2025

Complications and Long-Term Outcome in 30 Canine Total Hip Arthroplasties Using a Second-Generation Selective Laser Melted Screw Cup

2025-2-VCOT-huels-5

Article Title: Complications and Long-Term Outcome in 30 Canine Total Hip Arthroplasties Using a Second-Generation Selective Laser Melted Screw Cup

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics 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 Banse 2022 et al., on skill retention methods, how did performance outcomes compare between SI and MI groups 3–4 weeks after instruction?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. After two supervised practice sessions, both SI and MI groups achieved comparable performance levels.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Performance was similar between both groups.
After two supervised practice sessions, both SI and MI groups achieved comparable performance levels.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Spaced instruction (SI) improved immediate performance on the first learned skill compared to massed instruction (MI) in both LSU and LMU cohorts.
  • Cognitive load was higher in MI students at LMU, particularly in physical demand, effort, and frustration, while LSU showed no significant cognitive load differences.
  • Skill performance differences disappeared after 2 weeks of supervised practice, regardless of instructional format.
  • Time to complete skills improved over time, but this did not always correlate with improved checklist or global rating scores.
  • Intrinsic cognitive load increased when teaching more complex or related surgical tasks in the same session.
  • Initial skill complexity and prior exposure may influence effectiveness of spaced vs massed instruction.
  • Supervised practice sessions are critical to eliminate initial skill disparities between instructional methods.
  • Massed instruction may still be acceptable if followed by scheduled practice opportunities.

Banse

Veterinary Surgery

7

2022

Teaching veterinary surgical skills: Comparison of massed versus spaced instruction

2022-7-VS-banse-3

Article Title: Teaching veterinary surgical skills: Comparison of massed versus spaced instruction

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 Downey 2023 et al., on thoracoscopic lung lobectomy, what was the long-term outcome for dogs that survived the perioperative period?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 11 surviving dogs showed no recurrence of disease on follow-up, indicating excellent long-term outcomes.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No recurrence in any dog.
All 11 surviving dogs showed no recurrence of disease on follow-up, indicating excellent long-term outcomes.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Thoracoscopic (TL) and thoracoscopic-assisted (TAL) lobectomy were performed in 12 dogs with non-neoplastic pulmonary consolidation.
  • 44% (4/9) of TL cases required conversion, most often due to pleural adhesions or poor visualization — a higher rate than for neoplastic lobectomies.
  • Surgical mortality was 8.3% (1/12 dogs), with death attributed to unaddressed BOAS, not surgical complications.
  • All 11 surviving dogs had no recurrence of clinical signs at a median 24-month follow-up.
  • Perioperative complications occurred in 58% (7/12): pneumothorax (2), hemorrhage (3), wound dehiscence (1), progressive pneumonia (1).
  • One-lung ventilation (OLV) was successful in 78% of TL dogs but may be harder to achieve in brachycephalic breeds.
  • Most dogs had infectious pneumonia (10/12), with bacterial causes identified in 8; fungal and viral etiologies were less common.
  • Hospitalization was short, with median stays of 3–4 days depending on approach and conversion status.

Downey

Veterinary Surgery

6

2023

Evaluation of long‐term outcome after lung lobectomy for canine non‐neoplastic pulmonary consolidation via thoracoscopic or thoracoscopic‐assisted surgery in 12 dogs

2023-6-VS-downey-2-14211

Article Title: Evaluation of long‐term outcome after lung lobectomy for canine non‐neoplastic pulmonary consolidation via thoracoscopic or thoracoscopic‐assisted surgery 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 Hernon 2023 et al., on flushing the CBD, what was concluded regarding the routine use of CBD flushing during cholecystectomy in dogs with GBM?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The authors concluded that CBD flushing did not yield clinical or clinico-pathological benefits, and should not be routinely performed.
Incorrect. The correct answer is It showed no added benefit and should not be routine.
The authors concluded that CBD flushing did not yield clinical or clinico-pathological benefits, and should not be routinely performed.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Flushing the common bile duct (CBD) during cholecystectomy did not result in improved hepatobiliary markers compared to no flushing.
  • Cholecystectomy alone significantly reduced ALP, ALT, GGT, bilirubin, and cholesterol 3 days postoperatively (p < .05 for all).
  • Survival to discharge was 90.3%, with no survival difference between flushed and non-flushed groups.
  • Postoperative pancreatitis occurred in 12.9% of dogs, evenly distributed between groups, suggesting flushing did not increase risk.
  • Most common complication was regurgitation (29%), not significantly different between groups.
  • Free abdominal fluid had low sensitivity (29%) but moderate specificity (73%) for gallbladder rupture.
  • No difference in duration of hospitalization or postoperative complications between groups.
  • Gallbladder rupture rate was 12.9%, lower than previously reported in literature.

Hernon

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

The effect of flushing of the common bile duct on hepatobiliary markers and short‐term outcomes in dogs undergoing cholecystectomy for the management of gall bladder mucocele: A randomized controlled prospective study

2023-5-VS-hernon-5

Article Title: The effect of flushing of the common bile duct on hepatobiliary markers and short‐term outcomes in dogs undergoing cholecystectomy for the management of gall bladder mucocele: A randomized controlled prospective 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 Horwood 2024 et al., on complications in luxoid hip dysplasia, what was the most common surgical revision performed for dorsal luxation?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Most luxated LH dogs were revised with femoral neck lengthening and/or increased head size to restore stability.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Increased femoral neck length.
Most luxated LH dogs were revised with femoral neck lengthening and/or increased head size to restore stability.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Luxoid hip dysplasia (LH) was present in 8% of THA cases and significantly increased risk of major complications (p < .001).
  • Intraoperative fissures/fractures were 3x more likely in LH dogs vs non-LH (39% vs 16%, p = .001).
  • Dorsal luxation was more frequent in LH dogs (28% vs 4%, p = .019).
  • Acetabular cup placement with ALO >35° was associated with luxation in LH dogs.
  • Morphologic abnormalities (e.g., femoral valgus, lateralization/medialization of cortices) were common in LH and may complicate implantation.
  • Despite higher risk, 94% of LH dogs achieved satisfactory outcomes after appropriate revisions.
  • Younger age and lighter weight characterized LH dogs (mean age 14.7 months vs 40.9 months, p < .001).
  • All LH dogs were treated with cementless stems; prophylactic cerclage was rarely used.

Horwood

Veterinary Surgery

4

2024

Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

2024-4-VS-horwood-3

Article Title: Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

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?

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.