Quiz Question

In You 2025 et al., on barbed sutures for lung lobectomy, how did the leakage pressure of barbed sutures compare with other techniques?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Leakage pressures among the three groups (ST, TR, BA) were statistically similar (p = .36), supporting comparable effectiveness.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Comparable to both stapling and traditional sutures.
Leakage pressures among the three groups (ST, TR, BA) were statistically similar (p = .36), supporting comparable effectiveness.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Barbed sutures showed comparable leakage pressure to traditional sutures and stapling devices (p = .36).
  • No bronchial leaks occurred at physiological pressure (<20 cmH₂O) in any group.
  • Leakage at supraphysiologic pressure (20–80 cmH₂O) occurred in 90% of stapler, 80% of traditional, and 60% of barbed suture closures.
  • Barbed sutures reduced ligation time significantly compared to traditional sutures (10.7 vs. 14.1 minutes, p < .01).
  • Staplers remained fastest, with mean ligation time of 2.4 minutes.
  • No knot failure or suture breakage was observed in barbed or traditional suture groups.
  • Leakage in barbed sutures occurred mostly at the loop effector zone, but remained within acceptable limits.
  • Barbed sutures may offer an effective alternative when staplers are unavailable, impractical, or cost-prohibitive.

You

Veterinary Surgery

7

2025

Evaluation of a knotless barbed suture for canine total lung lobectomy: An ex vivo study

2025-7-VS-you-4

Article Title: Evaluation of a knotless barbed suture for canine total lung lobectomy: 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 Lampart 2023 et al., on manual laxity testing, which test showed the greatest interobserver variability in compressive force applied?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CD showed poor interobserver agreement for force application (ICC = 0.44), likely due to examiner experience and hand positioning.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Cranial drawer test.
CD showed poor interobserver agreement for force application (ICC = 0.44), likely due to examiner experience and hand positioning.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Cranial drawer (CD), tibial compression (TCT), and tibial pivot compression test (TPCT) showed 100% sensitivity and specificity in differentiating intact from CCL-deficient stifles in this ex vivo model.
  • TPCT elicited the highest cranial tibial translation (CTT) and internal tibial rotation, though differences in rotation did not reach statistical significance.
  • Inter- and intraobserver agreement for CTT was excellent across all tests (ICC >0.9).
  • Rotation and force application had greater variability, particularly with less experienced observers and during CD.
  • Forces applied during CD were significantly higher in intact limbs and correlated with observer experience.
  • Subjective CTT estimates strongly correlated with objective kinematic measurements (r = 0.895), with a median absolute error of 1.31 mm.
  • TPCT may be particularly useful for assessing rotational instability, mimicking the pivot-shift test used in human ACL exams.
  • Study supports development of a grading system for manual laxity testing, especially in acute CCLR cases.

Lampart

Veterinary Surgery

5

2023

Evaluation of the accuracy and intra‐ and interobserver reliability of three manual laxity tests for canine cranial cruciate ligament rupture—An ex vivo kinetic and kinematic study

2023-5-VS-lampart-4

Article Title: Evaluation of the accuracy and intra‐ and interobserver reliability of three manual laxity tests for canine cranial cruciate ligament rupture—An ex vivo kinetic and kinematic 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 Johnson 2022 et al., on PET implant outcomes, which of the following outcome measures showed statistically significant improvement after surgery?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Both owner-reported LOAD scores and limb asymmetry improved significantly (p = .008 and p = .002, respectively).
Incorrect. The correct answer is LOAD score and gait asymmetry.
Both owner-reported LOAD scores and limb asymmetry improved significantly (p = .008 and p = .002, respectively).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Only 2 of 10 PET implants were fully intact and functional at 6 months post-op.
  • Owner-reported function (LOAD scores) improved by 51.7% (p = .008) over 6 months.
  • Gait asymmetry improved by 86% (p = .002) postoperatively.
  • Implant failure occurred in the midbody of the PET device, suggesting fatigue as a failure mechanism.
  • One dog (10%) developed implant infection, necessitating implant removal.
  • Implant fixation method (screws + washers + interference screw) was mechanically adequate and technically simple.
  • Partially intact implants (4/10) still showed improved clinical outcomes, despite structural compromise.
  • Midbody tearing and lack of long-term integrity prohibit continued use of this PET implant in CCL repair.

Johnson

Veterinary Surgery

8

2022

Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial

2022-8-VS-johnson-3

Article Title: Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial

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 Murphy 2024 et al., which factor was associated with decreased odds of contralateral CCLR per month?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Each 1-month increase in age decreased the odds of contralateral rupture by 2% (OR 0.98, p=0.003).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Age.
Each 1-month increase in age decreased the odds of contralateral rupture by 2% (OR 0.98, p=0.003).

🔍 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-3

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 Hawker 2025 et al., on locking head inserts, what did the authors conclude regarding high-strain construct scenarios?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. LHI did not reduce strain in this model; authors recommend considering other methods for high load conditions.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Consider alternate strain-reduction strategies.
LHI did not reduce strain in this model; authors recommend considering other methods for high load conditions.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Adding Locking Head Inserts (LHI) to a 3.5-mm LCP had no effect on plate strain, stiffness, or deformation in an open fracture gap model.
  • Peak strain consistently occurred at the Combi-hole over the fracture gap, with values up to ~1837 µε.
  • No significant difference in strain was found across configurations with 0, 3, or 9 LHI (p = 0.847).
  • Construct stiffness and compressive displacement also remained unchanged regardless of LHI count (p = 0.311 and 0.069 respectively).
  • Study contradicted the hypothesis that LHI would reduce strain and increase stiffness under biologic loading.
  • Combi-hole design may limit the efficacy of LHI, as LHI only fill the locking portion, not the compression side where strain peaks.
  • Implant fatigue risk remains highest over unfilled screw holes, especially over fracture sites—confirming previous failure patterns.
  • Surgeons should consider alternative methods to reduce strain when facing high implant load scenarios.

Hawker

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology

4

2025

The Effect of Locking Head Inserts on the Biomechanical Properties of a 3.5-mm Broad Locking Compression Plate When Used in an Open Fracture-Gap Model

2025-4-VCOT-hawker-5

Article Title: The Effect of Locking Head Inserts on the Biomechanical Properties of a 3.5-mm Broad Locking Compression Plate When Used in an Open Fracture-Gap Model

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 Miller 2024 et al., on leak testing in cooled feline intestine, what was the finding regarding initial leak pressure (ILP) between fresh and cooled enterotomy constructs?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Both ILP and MIP did not differ between cooled and fresh enterotomy groups.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Initial leak pressure did not differ significantly between groups.
Both ILP and MIP did not differ between cooled and fresh enterotomy groups.

🔍 Key Findings

  • No difference in initial leak pressure (ILP) or maximum intraluminal pressure (MIP) between cooled (17–29 h) and fresh enterotomy constructs.
  • Wall thickness of duodenum and jejunum did not differ between fresh and cooled samples.
  • Leak locations (suture holes vs clamp sites) were similar between groups; not statistically different.
  • Volume of infusion did not influence ILP or MIP outcomes.
  • Mean ILP values: Control = 600 mmHg (maxed), Fresh = 200 mmHg, Cooled = 131 mmHg; CE vs FE difference was not significant.
  • Intraluminal diameter was largest in the ileum, followed by jejunum and duodenum.
  • Cadaveric intestine cooled ≤29h may be reliably used in ex vivo feline leak pressure studies.
  • First report of gross small intestinal lengths by region in cats—useful for resection planning.

Miller

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Cooled feline intestine and fresh intestine did not differ in enterotomy leak pressure testing or in gross wall thickness measurement

2024-5-VS-miller-1

Article Title: Cooled feline intestine and fresh intestine did not differ in enterotomy leak pressure testing or in gross wall thickness measurement

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 Murphy 2024 et al., which factor was **not** significantly associated with contralateral CCLR risk?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Multivariate analysis found TPA, comorbidities, and meniscal status were **not** significant risk factors.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Tibial plateau angle (TPA).
Multivariate analysis found TPA, comorbidities, and meniscal status were **not** significant risk factors.

🔍 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-5

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 Mazdarani 2025 et al., on simulated muscle loading, which model showed the lowest muscle force ratios (quadriceps:gastrocnemius)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Model 2 consistently showed lower ratios compared to others (p = .007).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Model 2 (rigid femoral fixation).
Model 2 consistently showed lower ratios compared to others (p = .007).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Simulated quadriceps and gastrocnemius forces increased proportionally with axial load in all three femoral fixation models.
  • Model 2 (rigid fixation) resulted in subphysiologic quadriceps forces and abnormally high gastrocnemius forces, reducing model fidelity.
  • Models 1 and 3 (with hip mobility) produced more physiologic quadriceps and force ratios, especially under 30–40% bodyweight loads.
  • Force ratios were significantly lower in rigid fixation (Model 2) compared to hip-mobile models (p = .007), suggesting model design affects simulated muscle coordination.
  • Joint angles (stifle and hock) remained within acceptable limits, though slight flexion occurred with increasing load.
  • Relative foot position differed by ~3.9 mm between models 2 and 3, with model 2 showing a more caudal position.
  • Model 3 preserved benefits of hip mobility while allowing radiographic documentation, making it a preferred setup for future studies.
  • The study suggests that models used in feline stifle stabilization research may underestimate physiologic forces, especially with rigid fixation designs.

Mazdarani

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press

2025-5-VS-mazdarani-2

Article Title: Proximal femoral fixation method and axial load affect simulated muscle forces in an ex vivo feline limb press

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 Caldeira 2025 et al., on femoral neck fixation, what role did the 3D-printed guide serve?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The 3D-printed guide was used to position the guide wires for accurate screw placement
Incorrect. The correct answer is Assisted accurate Kirschner wire placement.
The 3D-printed guide was used to position the guide wires for accurate screw placement

🔍 Key Findings

Design: In vitro study on cadaveric femurs (n=21) with basilar femoral neck fractures stabilized using 2 vs 3 titanium cannulated screws.

Stiffness: Control > 3-screw > 2-screw (674 > 120 > 90 N/mm).

Yield Load: 3-screw (586 N) > 2-screw (303 N); both < intact femur (2692 N).

Displacement: No difference across groups.

Complication: 3-screw technique more demanding; higher risk of cortical perforation, especially with narrow femoral necks.

Failure Mode: Dislodgement of femoral head + screw shaft bending.

Conclusion: 3 screws = stronger construct than 2 screws. Clinical implications need further study.

Caldeira

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

1

2025

In Vitro Biomechanical Study of Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation with Two or Three Cannulated Screws in Dogs

2025-1-VC-Caldeira-4

Article Title: In Vitro Biomechanical Study of Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation with Two or Three Cannulated Screws in 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 Saitoh 2025 et al., on CTS stabilization, which group of dogs all returned to work after CTS stabilization?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Farm dogs with instability.
All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 12 dogs with medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability (TCI), including 5 working farm dogs.
Procedure: Temporary immobilization using a calcaneotibial screw (CTS) combined with external coaptation (EC).
Stabilization techniques:

  • 3 dogs = primary ligamentous repair
  • 8 dogs = synthetic ligament reconstruction
  • 2 dogs = malleolar fracture repair

Follow-up: Median 31 months (range 4–66); 10 owners completed outcome survey.
Outcomes:

  • All 10 dogs had improved or resolved lameness.
  • All 5 farm dogs returned to work (most at full or substantial capacity).
  • Complication rate: 4 distinct events in 3 dogs (1 major = CTS breakage; 3 minor = bandage-related soft tissue injuries).

Conclusion: CTS + EC provided effective immobilization with low complication rate, and functional outcomes were favorable even in active dogs.

Saitoh

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

2025-1-VS-saitoh-4

Article Title: Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability 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?

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:

✅ 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.