Quiz Question

In Smith 2024 et al., on ergonomics and preferences in veterinary laparoscopy, which subgroup of surgeons experienced significantly greater difficulty with endoscopic staplers?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Left-handed users reported more difficulty due to right-hand-dominant designs.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Left-handed surgeons.
Left-handed users reported more difficulty due to right-hand-dominant designs.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Surgeons with smaller glove sizes experienced more difficulty using laparoscopic instruments, especially endoscopic staplers, cup biopsy forceps, and vessel sealing devices.
  • Endoscopic stapler was rated the most difficult instrument, with a median difficulty score of 4/10 and 25% usage difficulty.
  • Female surgeons reported significantly more difficulty with several instruments due to smaller glove size.
  • Reusable instruments were preferred over disposable ones for all tasks.
  • Pistol grips were preferred for grasping/retracting and fine dissection, while axial grips were preferred for suturing/knot tying.
  • Articulating handles were consistently associated with increased reported difficulty, especially with scissors and cup biopsy forceps.
  • Left-handed surgeons had more difficulty operating endoscopic staplers, suggesting limited design inclusivity.
  • Surgeons in academic settings reported more difficulty with laparoscopic maneuvers than those in private practice.

Smith

Veterinary Surgery

3

2024

Variables affecting surgeons’ use of, and preferences for, instrumentation in veterinary laparoscopy

2024-3-VS-smith-5

Article Title: Variables affecting surgeons’ use of, and preferences for, instrumentation in veterinary laparoscopy

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 Stoneburner 2024 et al., on MIS survey results, which factor was most strongly associated with increased MIS proficiency?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Those trained in MIS during residency had significantly greater perceived proficiency (p < .001).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Residency training in MIS.
Those trained in MIS during residency had significantly greater perceived proficiency (p < .001).

🔍 Key Findings

  • The survey included 111 practicing surgeons and 28 residents from ACVS, ECVS, and ANZCVS. 98.2% had performed soft tissue minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
  • In the past year, surgeons reported a median caseload of 90% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced laparoscopy, and 10% thoracoscopy; for residents: 100% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced, 0% thoracoscopy.
  • Laparoscopic ovariectomy and OHE were the most commonly performed MIS procedures, with most respondents proficient in basic laparoscopy, but few performing advanced laparoscopy or thoracoscopy.
  • Top barriers to MIS adoption were: lack of consistent caseload, lack of training, difficult learning curve, equipment limitations, and cost.
  • 76.6% of surgeons and 92.9% of residents received MIS training during residency. Those trained had completed residency median 6 years ago, compared to 22 years ago for those without MIS training (p < .001). Perceived adequate training correlated with higher proficiency.
  • MIS was recognized as having a steep learning curve, but patient benefits (mean score 4.0/5) were the top motivation — less pain, faster recovery, improved visualization.
  • The authors conclude basic laparoscopy is widely adopted, but advanced and thoracoscopic MIS remain underutilized. Training and access are key to future growth.
  • Expanded training and improved access to equipment are necessary to promote broader integration of MIS into veterinary soft-tissue surgery.

Stoneburner

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

2024-5-VS-stoneburner-3

Article Title: Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

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 Lemmon 2025 et al., on synovitis severity scoring, what was concluded about the impact of bucket handle meniscal tears on synovitis severity?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Meniscal tears were not significantly associated with synovitis grade.
Incorrect. The correct answer is They had no significant effect.
Meniscal tears were not significantly associated with synovitis grade.

🔍 Key Findings

Synovitis was present in 100% of canine stifles with CCL disease (n = 163).

The most frequent severity score was 3/5 (55.2%), followed by 4/5 (24.5%).

Higher synovitis scores were significantly associated with:

  • Higher median cartilage scores (p = .042, OR = 2.1 per unit increase)
  • Longer duration of clinical signs (p < .001, OR = 1.27 per month)

Bodyweight (p = .083) and sex (p = .17) were not statistically significant in multivariable analysis.

Bucket handle meniscal tears were not associated with synovitis severity.

Clinical implication: Earlier intervention may help reduce synovitis and slow OA progression.

Lemmon

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Arthroscopic synovitis severity scoring in canine stifles with cranial cruciate ligament disease

2025-3-VS-lemmon-4

Article Title: Arthroscopic synovitis severity scoring in canine stifles with cranial cruciate ligament disease

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 Ellis 2024 et al., what conclusion was drawn regarding sclerosis seen on elbow CT in Guide Dogs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Higher HU values (suggestive of sclerosis) in Guide Dogs were not linked to elbow pathology and may reflect breed variation:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is It should be interpreted with caution.
Higher HU values (suggestive of sclerosis) in Guide Dogs were not linked to elbow pathology and may reflect breed variation:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • 86 elbows assessed: 32 Guide Dogs, 11 Border Collies
  • Guide Dogs showed significantly higher HU values in:
    • MCP: min (p = 0.022), mean (p < 0.01), max (p < 0.01)
    • Humeral trochlea: mean (p < 0.01), max (p < 0.01)
  • Results imply breed-associated HU variation, not necessarily pathologic sclerosis
  • Relevance: Important to avoid false positives for elbow dysplasia during CT-based breeding screens
  • Good interobserver agreement for mean HU values (ICC ~0.82–0.90)

Ellis

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

3

2024

Comparison of Hounsfield Units within the Humeral Trochlea and Medial Coronoid Process in a Population of Labrador X Golden Retriever Guide Dogs and Border Collies

2024-3-VCOT-ellis-4

Article Title: Comparison of Hounsfield Units within the Humeral Trochlea and Medial Coronoid Process in a Population of Labrador X Golden Retriever Guide Dogs and Border Collies

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 Payne 2024 et al., on HIF propagation pattern, what was the observed relationship between %LHIF and %HIF?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. %LHIF increased in a sigmoidal manner relative to %HIF (p < 0.001), reflecting segmental fissure propagation.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Sigmoidal increase.
%LHIF increased in a sigmoidal manner relative to %HIF (p < 0.001), reflecting segmental fissure propagation.

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • HIF typically originates 57° caudal to the supratrochlear foramen and propagates cranially in a segmental pattern.
  • %HIF correlated significantly with both fissure depth and length:
    • %DHIF increased linearly (r = 0.989, p < 0.001)
    • %LHIF followed a sigmoidal relationship with %HIF (p < 0.001)
  • Higher %HIF was significantly associated with:
    • Clinical lameness (p = 0.004)
    • Distal shift in the fissure center (CHIF)
  • Implant complications in 5/17 elbows treated with transcondylar screws
  • Isthmus diameter increased with weight (p = 0.002), relevant for screw sizing

Payne

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Computed Tomography Topographical Analysis of Incomplete Humeral Intracondylar Fissures in English Springer Spaniel Dogs

2024-2-VCOT-payne-3

Article Title: Computed Tomography Topographical Analysis of Incomplete Humeral Intracondylar Fissures in English Springer Spaniel Dogs

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 Scharpf 2024 et al., what symmetry index (SI) threshold was considered indicative of normal limb loading?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. A symmetry index (SI) ≥ 0.9 was defined as normal for limb loading across all force parameters:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is 0.90.
A symmetry index (SI) ≥ 0.9 was defined as normal for limb loading across all force parameters:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Subtotal coronoidectomy improved vertical and propulsive forces, but braking forces remained subnormal at 26 weeks.
  • No significant benefit was seen from ACP vs placebo at any timepoint across all force parameters or lameness scores.
  • Force plate analysis was more sensitive than visual lameness scoring.
  • Braking force (%FY+) was best at detecting persistent lameness, and SI < 0.9 persisted in most dogs at 26 weeks.
  • Outcome less favorable than historically reported — challenges status of subtotal coronoidectomy as “gold standard” for MCD.

Scharpf

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Assessment of Arthroscopic Subtotal Coronoidectomy in Treating Medial Coronoid Disease and Effect of Concurrent Autologous Conditioned Plasma in Dogs Using Force Plate Analysis

2024-2-VCOT-scharpf-3

Article Title: Assessment of Arthroscopic Subtotal Coronoidectomy in Treating Medial Coronoid Disease and Effect of Concurrent Autologous Conditioned Plasma in Dogs Using Force Plate Analysis

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 Sullivan 2025 et al., on TTT stabilization methods, which stabilization method showed significantly different failure force or stiffness?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All methods showed comparable failure force and stiffness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is No significant differences were found.
All methods showed comparable failure force and stiffness.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Spacer pin fixation showed no difference in failure force or stiffness compared to tension band wire (TBW) or 2-pin techniques.
  • All constructs failed under loads >1000 N, exceeding estimated peak quadriceps force in dogs during walking (~240 N).
  • Patellar ligament failure was the most common mode of failure across all groups (5–8 samples per group).
  • Distal tibial crest fractures were seen only in 2-pin and spacer pin groups, not in TBW group, suggesting TBW may protect against crest failure.
  • No failures occurred at pin tracts, possibly due to pin placement within patellar ligament footprint.
  • Spacer pin technique avoids placing pins through the tuberosity, potentially reducing risks of soft tissue complications like tendinopathy or irritation.
  • Use of partial osteotomy with robust distal crest may substitute for TBW without compromising initial mechanical strength.
  • Further in vivo or cyclic loading studies are required, as this cadaveric study tested only acute tensile failure.

Sullivan

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

3

2025

Biomechanical Comparison of Spacer Pin Fixation to Two Established Methods of Tibial Tuberosity Transposition Stabilization in Dogs

2025-3-VCOT-sullivan-1

Article Title: Biomechanical Comparison of Spacer Pin Fixation to Two Established Methods of Tibial Tuberosity Transposition Stabilization in Dogs

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 Niida 2024 et al., on surgical residents and TPLO time, what data did the study provide on complication rates?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The study specifically excluded outcomes data and focused on surgical time only.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Complication rates were not evaluated.
The study specifically excluded outcomes data and focused on surgical time only.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Resident involvement significantly increased TPLO surgery duration compared to cases performed by faculty surgeons (FS)-only. Residents required 54% more surgery time (GLSM, 153 min) than FS-only cases (GLSM, 99 min), representing a 1.54-fold increase.
  • The study did not report on short-term complication rates. No conclusions can be drawn from this source regarding complications between resident and faculty groups.
  • Bone plate contouring was not evaluated. The source does not provide data regarding contouring frequency or its comparison between groups.
  • Surgery duration significantly decreased after the first year of residency, but remained stable between second- and third-year residents. This was largely due to shorter tibial osteotomy durations, while arthroscopy times remained unchanged across residency years.
  • Meniscal treatment was performed in 80% of cases, and it was associated with increased surgical duration, but the study did not compare the frequency of medial meniscal release between resident and faculty cases.
  • The study did not evaluate osteotomy healing or revision surgery. Cases requiring immediate reoperation were excluded.
  • Bone union outcomes were not assessed at 8 weeks or any other time point.
  • The study concludes that resident participation significantly prolongs surgical time, but no data are provided regarding the effect on short-term clinical outcomes.

Niida

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

The impact of surgery resident training on the duration of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and outcomes in dogs

2024-5-VS-niida-4

Article Title: The impact of surgery resident training on the duration of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy and outcomes 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 Bae 2025 et al., on SI screw orientation, which parameter did NOT differ significantly among groups?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Moment arm measurements showed no significant differences (p = .82), ensuring fair comparison of torque outcomes.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Moment arm.
Moment arm measurements showed no significant differences (p = .82), ensuring fair comparison of torque outcomes.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Ex vivo study using 24 canine cadaver pelves to test screw thread direction in SI luxation.
  • Four groups: RhRSI, RhLSI, LhRSI, LhLSI.
  • Right-handed screws on right side (RhRSI) had 313% higher torque and 274% higher load vs left side (p < .01).
  • Left-handed screws on left side (LhLSI) had 198% higher torque and 195% higher load vs right side (p < .03).
  • All failures occurred due to rotation, with no screw breakage or fractures.
  • Body weight and moment arm were similar across groups.
  • Clinical implication: Use of screw matching handedness to luxation side improves stability.

Bae

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

Effect of thread direction on rotational stability in lag​-screw fixation of sacroiliac luxation: An ex vivo cadaveric study in small-breed dogs

2025-2-VS-bae-4

Article Title: Effect of thread direction on rotational stability in lag​-screw fixation of sacroiliac luxation: An ex vivo cadaveric study in small-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 Stoneburner 2024 et al., on MIS survey results, what proportion of responding surgeons had performed basic laparoscopy in the previous year?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Median proportion of MIS cases for surgeons was 90% basic laparoscopy.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 90%.
Median proportion of MIS cases for surgeons was 90% basic laparoscopy.

🔍 Key Findings

  • The survey included 111 practicing surgeons and 28 residents from ACVS, ECVS, and ANZCVS. 98.2% had performed soft tissue minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
  • In the past year, surgeons reported a median caseload of 90% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced laparoscopy, and 10% thoracoscopy; for residents: 100% basic laparoscopy, 0% advanced, 0% thoracoscopy.
  • Laparoscopic ovariectomy and OHE were the most commonly performed MIS procedures, with most respondents proficient in basic laparoscopy, but few performing advanced laparoscopy or thoracoscopy.
  • Top barriers to MIS adoption were: lack of consistent caseload, lack of training, difficult learning curve, equipment limitations, and cost.
  • 76.6% of surgeons and 92.9% of residents received MIS training during residency. Those trained had completed residency median 6 years ago, compared to 22 years ago for those without MIS training (p < .001). Perceived adequate training correlated with higher proficiency.
  • MIS was recognized as having a steep learning curve, but patient benefits (mean score 4.0/5) were the top motivation — less pain, faster recovery, improved visualization.
  • The authors conclude basic laparoscopy is widely adopted, but advanced and thoracoscopic MIS remain underutilized. Training and access are key to future growth.
  • Expanded training and improved access to equipment are necessary to promote broader integration of MIS into veterinary soft-tissue surgery.

Stoneburner

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

2024-5-VS-stoneburner-1

Article Title: Laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in small animal surgery: A 2020 survey of small animal surgical diplomates and residents

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: Research & Evidence
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

❌ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

âś… 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.