abstract submission

SUBMISSIONS FOR VES 2022 ARE NOW OPEN! Abstract Submission closes Tuesday, March 15th, 2022 at 5:00 PM EDT. Abstract notifications will be emailed in mid-March to the submitting author.

Presenting authors of accepted submissions must register for and present their work at the meeting. This stipulation applies to oral and resident competition.

  • If your abstract is accepted as an oral presentation it will be published in the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, the European College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the Veterinary Endoscopy Society, ‘Veterinary Surgery’ and will be a citable reference. The VES Research Committee and Veterinary Surgery’s editorial office strongly encourages you to submit your full manuscript for publication in Veterinary Surgery.

Original Scientific Research Abstract Submission Guidelines:

  • Abstracts should be submitted by e-mail (Word format) to Jacqueline.scott@vca.com with subject line: “Abstract for VES 2022″ by March 15th, 2022. Make sure that you receive a reply to confirm your abstract has been received and can be viewed.
  • Please pay careful attention to the formatting guidelines below as inappropriate formatting will result in the return of the abstract to the submitting author.

All abstracts must be accompanied by the primary authors curriculum vitae (CV) at the time of the original submission. This should be submitted as a .pdf file. This is required for all submissions, including those in the resident’s forum, due to continuing education compliance.

Resident Abstract Competition:

  • The VES is excited to continue the resident abstract competition at the upcoming annual meeting! Resident project abstracts will be evaluated using common criteria by a preselected committee of attendees. 
  • Two awards will be offered:
    • First place award: $1,000 for the best abstract and presentation
    • Second place award: $500 for the runner-up
  1. Abstracts must be properly formatted and the following outline is preferred: Objective, Study Design, Animals, Methods, Results and Conclusions. For case reports or case series, the following headlines still apply; Objectives, Study design (case report or short case series), Animals, Methods (history, diagnosis, treatment), Results (outcomes), Conclusion (new knowledge, unique aspects of the report). Do not bold, underline or italicize within the text of the abstract. Do not insert blank lines between lines or headings in the abstract.
  2. Abstracts should be typed in Times New Roman, 12-point font, and double spaced, with 1.25 inch margins. Title should be bolded and capitalized.
  3. Abstracts should include a scientific hypothesis in the Objectives section, and implications for research, policy or practice in the Conclusions section, when applicable.
  4. Affiliations and institutions should follow immediately after author names. Name of department and institution, followed by city and state or country if outside the USA should be noted. Affiliations should be denoted with a superscript Arabic numeral placed after each author’s last name before degrees that correspond to the institutional affiliations listed.
  5. The abstract cannot contain illustrations, images or graphs. If the abstract is accepted, presenters may include these items in their on-site presentations.
  6. The maximum word limit, including the title and body of the abstract, is 250 words. This is to prevent endangerment of future publication of the manuscript.
  7. All abstracts must be accompanied by the primary authors curriculum vitae (CV) at the time of the original submission. This should be submitted as a .pdf file. This is required for all submissions, including those in the resident’s forum, due to continuing education compliance.
  8. Authorship credit should only be given if all three of the following criteria are met. Each author must have made substantial contributions to:
    • conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data, and
    • drafting the abstract or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and
    • final approval of the version to be submitted/published.

Perioperative Outcome And Complications Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy In Dogs: 20 Cases (2008-2015)

Jacqueline Scott1 BVSc, MANZCVSc; Ameet Singh1 DVSc, DACVS; Phillipp D. Mayhew2 BVM&S, DACVS, J. Brad Case3 DVM, MS, DACVS, Jeffrey J. Runge4 DVM, DACVS, Mathieu Gatineau5 DMV, DACVS

1Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, University of California-Davis; 3Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; 4Department of Clinical Studies, Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA and 5Centre Vétérinaire DMV, Lachine, Quebec, Canada.

Objective: To report the complications and outcome of dogs undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated gallbladder disease.
Study Design: Multi-institutional case series.
Animals: Client-owned dogs (n=20).

Methods: Medical records of dogs that underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were reviewed and signalment, history, clinical and ultrasound examination findings, surgical variables, and complications were collated. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed using a multiport approach. Data were compared between dogs with successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy and dogs requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy.

Results: Six dogs (30%) required conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy due to inability to ligate the cystic duct (3), evidence of gallbladder rupture (1), leakage from the cystic duct during dissection (1), and cardiac arrest (1). Cystic duct dissection was performed in 19 dogs using an articulating dissector (10), right angle forceps (7), and unrecorded (2). The cystic duct was ligated in 15 dogs using surgical clips (5), suture (6), or a combination (4). All dogs were discharged from the hospital and had resolution of clinical signs, although 1 dog developed pancreatitis and 1 dog required revision surgery for bile peritonitis. There was no significant difference in preoperative blood analysis results, surgical technique, or duration of hospitalization between dogs undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and cases converted to open cholecystectomy.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed successfully for uncomplicated gallbladder disease in dogs after careful case selection. The surgeon considering laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be familiar with a variety of methods for cystic duct dissection and ligation to avoid difficulties during the procedure.

submit abstract