abstract submission

SUBMISSIONS FOR VES 2024 ARE NOW OPEN! Abstract Submission closes April 1st, 2024. 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 vesabstracts@gmail.com with subject line: Abstract for VES 2024 by April 1st, 2024. Make sure that you receive a reply to confirm your abstract has been received and can be viewed. You can also use the submission form below.
  • 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
  • Use Time New Romans 11
  • Format should be:

Title.
Author One – Last Name and Initials, Author Two.
Affiliation. (Note there is a period after the affiliation line.)

  • Title: Must be in Title Case (Capitalize each word, but lowercase prepositions, conjunctions, etc.)
  • If multiple authors with multiple institutions, need to flag each institution with a superscript number before the institution listing and use that numeral at the end of the author’s name. Use semi-colons to separate multiple institutions.
  • Use Time New Romans 11
  • Format should be:

Title.
Author One – Last Name and Initials, Author Two.
Affiliation. (Note there is a period after the affiliation line.)

  • Title:  Must be in Title Case (Capitalize each word, but lowercase prepositions, conjunctions, etc.)
  • If multiple authors with multiple institutions, need to flag each institution with a superscript number before the institution listing and use that numeral at the end of the author’s name.  Use semi-colons to separate multiple institutions.

Title.
Author One1, Author2.
1AffiliationOne; 2AffiliationTwo. (Note there is a period after the affiliation line.)
Skip a line
Abstract text with Headers:
Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions
Skip a line between each abstract

Effect of Osteotomy and Plate orientation on Rock-Back following Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy Using a Tibial Gap Model.
Bula E, Abdullatif M, Chung WC, Mukherjee R, Dejardin LM*.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.

Objectives: While rock-back (RB) is a known TPLO complication, its cause has not been elucidated. We proposed that RB is affected by 1) osteotomy orientation with respect to the caudal tibial cortex (uphill, normal and downhill) and 2) plate inclination with respect to the tibial mechanical axis (parallel. i.e. straight, and inclined). We hypothesized that greatest and smallest RB would result from the combination of a downhill osteotomy with an inclined plate and an uphill osteotomy with a straight (parallel) plate, respectively.
Methods: Tibial bone models were 3D printed from CT images of a 26kg dog with a 26-degree TPA. Models featured one of the 3 osteotomies with a 1mm interfragmentary gap. For each osteotomy, a 2.7mm TPLO plate (DePuy-Synthes) was applied either parallel to or at a 20-degree angle to the tibial mechanical axis. Specimens were cyclically loaded to ~400N using a custom press. Electromagnetic sensors affixed to the tibial plateau and crest were used to compare tibial plateau RB about the mediolateral axis.
Results: Within each osteotomy group, RB was ~1.5 times greater with inclined than straight plates (p<0.0001). Conversely, the orientation of the osteotomy had no significant effect on RB.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that our model can replicate RB seen in vivo and that RB likely results from an accentuated disruptive force couple generated by an inclined plate as compared to a plate placed parallel to the tibial mechanical axis.

submit abstract