Abstract submission

submissions for VES 2020 are now Closed.

Abstract notifications will be emailed in mid-March to the submitting author.

Abstract Submission closes Saturday, February 1st, 2020 at 5:00 PM EDT


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‚Äôs 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 imbalsa@ucdavis.edu with subject line: "Abstract for VES 2020" by February 1st, 2020. 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

ABSTRACT FORMATTING GUIDELINES:

  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, 11 point font, and single spaced, with one 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.
  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.

EXAMPLE ABSTRACT SUBMISSION:

COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND LAPAROSCOPIC ABDOMINAL CRYPTORCHIDECTOMY IN DOGS (2008 - 2017).

Thomson CB, Kiefer K, LaFond E.

Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.

Objective: Compare short term outcomes in dogs undergoing laparoscopic and conventional abdominal cryptorchidectomy.

Study design: Retrospective study

Animals: Client-owned dogs

Methods: An electronic medical records search was performed. Inclusion criteria included dogs undergoing laparoscopic or conventional abdominal cryptorchidectomy between 2008 - 2017.

Results: Twenty-eight abdominal cryptorchidectomies were assessed; 15 were performed via laparoscopy, 13 via laparotomy. Of the 28 dogs, 7 had left sided cryptorchid testicles, 12 had right sided, and 9 bilateral. Surgical time ranged from 30 to 95 minutes (mean 53.3) for laparoscopy and 45 to 105 minutes (mean 63.5) for laparotomy. Laparotomy was associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative hypotension and hypothermia when compared to the laparoscopic group. In the laparoscopic group, 93% were discharged the day of surgery, versus 46% of those in the laparotomy group. One minor complication was observed; a seroma, in the laparoscopic group, which resolved with conservative management. Cost of surgery averaged $1045.91 and 823.92, with total bill averaging $1538.54 and 1314.23 for laparoscopic and conventional surgery, respectively.

Conclusion: Intraoperative anesthetic complications were lower in the laparoscopic group, with equivalent surgical times and client costs between groups, which may be an important consideration in small, young dogs. Laparoscopic approach to cryptorchid testicle retrieval should be considered a safe, viable procedure with comparably excellent outcomes to open laparotomy.

EXAMPLE Case report:

TRANSPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC URETERONEPHRECTOMY FOR RENAL CARCINOMA IN A DOG

Singh A, Wright TF, Patten S, Oblak M, Richardson D

Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.

Objective: To report the use of a transperitoneal laparoscopic ureteronephrectomy technique for renal carcinoma in a dog.

Study Design: Case report.

Animals: 7-year-old, client-owned dog with left-sided renal carcinoma.

Methods: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) was performed prior to surgery. A single access port was placed on ventral midline, just caudal to the umbilicus. The dog was then rotated into right lateral recumbency and a second port (10 mm) placed in the caudal abdomen. A blunt probe was used to elevate the kidney and a 5 mm vessel sealing device was used to initiate dissection allowing for exposure of the renal hilus. Skeletonization of the renal vein and artery was performed and these vessels were first individually occluded using 10 mm laparoscopic hemoclips and then sealed distally using a 10 mm vessel sealing device. The ureter was dissected from the retroperitoneum and then it was occluded in the same manner as the renal vessels at the level of the urinary bladder.

Results: Abdominal CT revealed a 2 cm x1.9 cm x 2.3 cm left renal mass. Surgical time for TLU was 105 minutes. A minor complication occurred intraoperatively during hemoclip application on the renal vein that resulted in minor hemorrhage. Subsequent clip application resolved hemorrhage and conversion to laparotomy was not required. The dog was discharged 24 hours postoperatively and histological evaluation revealed renal carcinoma. Telephone follow-up at seven days postoperatively revealed good clinical outcome.

Conclusions: With careful case selection, TLU can be performed for resection of renal neoplasms in dogs.