Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Robinson
Thank you (Boomer & HHDS) for confirming what I've previously mentioned regarding laparoscopic surgery for dogs. Yes -- the uterus is still in tact because it is impossible to remove with that kind of surgery.
To the O.P., Amory -- yes -- removing the ovaries is safe, however, leaving the uterus may not be so safe.
Once again, I am curious to ask a third time:
Why are you so hell-bent on the laparoscoptic surgery if it means that leaving the uterus could present a serious future problem for your pet (a dog, I assume)???
I believe if you asked most vets why they don't perform that type of spay it isn't necessarily because of the cost of the equipment. It's probably because of the potential threat of what not removing the uterus could lead up to.
BTW -- none of this has anything to do with a tubal ligation which is not done on dogs.
|
This article maintains that pyrometra is caused by hormones which stop being produced when the ovaries are removed.
Announcing a New Safer Alternative to Traditional Spaying
Quoted from link above;
"Is It Safe to Leave the Uterus Behind?
Yes it is.
However, there are still plenty of veterinarians who continue to warn pet owners of the dangers of uterine infection and uterine cancer.
To be blunt, this is nonsense.
Uterine disease in dogs whose ovaries have been removed is almost nonexistent. The disease called pyometra, which is pus in the uterus, is the most common uterine problem in intact dogs. It is the result of the influence of the hormone progesterone, produced by the ovaries.
When the ovaries are removed, hormone production stops and it becomes impossible for pyometra to occur naturally.
Malignant uterine tumors in dogs with or without ovaries are an extremely rare occurrence at 0.003 percent of all canine tumors.
Above All, Do No Harm
Proponents of ovariectomy contend the U.S. preference for removing a healthy uterus rather than just the ovaries of a dog or cat flies in the face of medicine’s ruling principle to ‘do no harm.’
The majority of veterinarians continue to perform ovariohysterectomies because that’s what they were taught. It’s tradition.
In addition, not many vets are trained in laparoscopic surgery or own the expensive equipment required for this type of procedure.
As a profession we need to ask ourselves if we truly do no harm when we risk the possible complications involved in removing a healthy uterus – especially when removing that uterus serves no useful purpose.
From a report published in 2006 in the journal Veterinary Surgery:
Since 1981, after introduction of OVE [ovariectomy] as the standard technique for canine neutering at Utrecht University, no increase in short-term complications has been observed. With respect to long-term urogenital problems, including endometritis/pyometra and urinary incontinence, it has been clearly established that they do not occur more frequently with either technique. The overall chance for development of malignant uterine tumors is very low (0.003 %), and, in our opinion, does not warrant performing a potentially more traumatizing surgical procedure, OVH [ovariohysterectomy], that might be associated with more postoperative complications.
Without benefit of more prospective studies comparing surgical complications between OVE and OVH, most evidence extracted from the literature leads us to the conclusion that there is no benefit and thus no indication for removing the uterus during routine neutering in healthy bitches. Thus we believe that OVE should be the procedure of choice for canine gonadectomy."
NOTE:I have no dog in this fight because I have no dog. Just medical interest.