Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Clive Ansell — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:47:27 GMT

I agree with the other posts, I don't have any moral or ethical issue at all with spaying heavily pregnant queens. I would go as far as saying that we are duty bound to on welfare grounds given that rescue and charity centres are bursting at the seams with huge number of unwanted and abandoned cats and kittens, often living in squalor with a whole host of infectious diseases and very unlikely to every be homed.

I have had no problems clinically either. I do them midline. I have never used IVFT, and don't see the need. One of the rescue centres I work monitors anaesthetised patients with a new all bells and whistles device. Blood pressure, heart rate, rectal temp, blood O2 sat, inhaled and exhaled O2 and CO2 are no different in heavily pregnant queens to those in standard cat spays, therefore cannot see an indication for IVFT. In any event costs are often an issue with these so IVFT is just going to up the bill.

As an aside, one of the small independent rescue centres I occasionally work in which has its own veterinary surgery once had a policy of not spaying any pregnant females. Feral cats were often isolated for the gestation period of 9 weeks and/or ultrasound scanned prior to spaying. Many of these cannot be handled and would require crush cage Domitor/ketamine anaesthesia just to scan. Given that Domitor is not recommended during pregnancy, I have never seen a single case of a complication following its use.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Robin Grimmer — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:49:14 GMT

Spaying a heavily pregnant cat is no riskier than doing a Caesarian. In fact, it's a lot easier to do a Caesar and then spay it, rather than have to close the uterus.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

tess — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:14:52 GMT

I never bother going for the cervix so the thing is never under tension. If it's in season will lightly clamp but hadn't considered not using one at all.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

CatherineThomas — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:53:34 GMT

I never clamp the cervix and I also don't worry about getting the cervix out if it is tight and non-pregnant.

I've spayed quite a few pregnant cats and don't have any issues with doing it. If they are quite far gone I will do it midline rather than flank but otherwise don't do anything different.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:39:46 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]

I had a couple of bad experiences when I first graduated last year of the cervix ripping when I clamped it during cat spays. I never clamp first, and only put a light clamp after ligating the cervix just to hold it in place whilst I cut the uterus out

[/quote]

To be honest, in a non-pregnant cat, getting the cervix out is overrated. Get it if you can pull it out without pulling like a deranged lunatic, but leave it in if you have to stretch it like that, you've got a good chance of ripping it when you clamp it under tension like that. As long as you get the entire ovary out both sides, you won't have any issues with 'stump' pyometra or return to heat. Leaving a bit of horn as long as it's ligated is perfectly fine.

(source: lots of spays, and got tired of being surprised by tearing tissue.)

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Anthony Dennison — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:13:16 GMT

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Mark Holmes — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:52:01 GMT

[quote user="tess"]

[quote user="karen jones"]would agree that on heat queens with friable uterus much more difficult

[/quote]

Yes- there's nothing worse than clamping it to watch it all disintegrate...

[/quote] DON'T CLAMP IT! simple. I have never clamped an in season uterus. Very occasionally gut will crush into it but providing you don't have it under tension the vessels will be fine and ligate without a problem despite the uterus falling to bits.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

tess — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:01:46 GMT

[quote user="karen jones"]would agree that on heat queens with friable uterus much more difficult

[/quote]

Yes- there's nothing worse than clamping it to watch it all disintegrate...

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

tess — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:00:07 GMT

No problems with pregnant spays. I just assumed that they had a larger blood volume due to the pregnancy which was brought to near normal after spaying, provided hamostasis is good.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

karen jones — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:33:02 GMT

Have speed heavily pregnant queens for years, always warn o of possible complications but would agree that on heat queens with friable uterus much more difficult

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:16:32 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]The argument for is that there's a hell of a lot of fluid in the uterus, which could be reabsorbed post-birth.[/quote]

But that fluid comes out the back end at parturition - no?

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

David Mills — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 02:02:02 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]The blood supply is greater so a theoretically bigger risk, but I have never had a problem. Has anyone?[/quote]

No, just wondering. Was a discussion at work this week. The argument for is that there's a hell of a lot of fluid in the uterus, which could be reabsorbed post-birth. I agree it probably doesn't affect long-term recovery etc but does it extend morbidity?

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Anthony Todd — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:53:42 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]The blood supply is greater so a theoretically bigger risk, but I have never had a problem. Has anyone?[/quote]

Not that I recall. Queens in prolonged oestrus were a worry to me 'cos the uterus is soooo friable and almost disintegrates when touched......

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:47:00 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Interestingly, those doing late preg spays, do you routinely use IVFT even if the queen is fully hydrated and otherwise healthy?

[/quote]

No. It's maybe an extra 5 minutes operating time (15 vs 10 mins [or less]) because I go midline rather than flank and have a slightly larger hole to close. It would take nearly as long to set up fluids and then remove them.

The blood supply is greater so a theoretically bigger risk, but I have never had a problem. Has anyone?

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Mark Holmes — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:24:37 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Interestingly, those doing late preg spays, do you routinely use IVFT even if the queen is fully hydrated and otherwise healthy?

[/quote] No just spay them never considered it (or found it) a problem.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

David Mills — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:52:13 GMT

Interestingly, those doing late preg spays, do you routinely use IVFT even if the queen is fully hydrated and otherwise healthy?

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

David Mills — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:48:52 GMT

[quote user="Rob Reid"]Having done lots of work for RSPCA and CPL shelters over the years, I have often had to spay heavily pregnant queens and euthanase the kittens. These shelters are full to bursting and generally do not have the staff nor space to be able to accomodate a nursing queen and kittens.[/quote]

Quite so.

It's all part of what we call cat recycling. We take in strays / runaways which normally have flu or the like, patch them up, neuter and rehome them, and then start the cycle all over again because no matter how many ferals we spay, the supply just continues relentless.

I sympathise with euthanasing kittens on the table. It isn't pleasant. But I don't think one can take anything less than a utilitarian view. Feral/stray cats spread flu, FIV/FeLV and generally come to a protracted and unpleasant end, except the few that are caught and euthanased before such time. To focus on the individual healthy kittens, backed up by rose-tinted anecdote, is wilful ignorance of the greater problem for transient personal satisfaction. As others have said, one cannot act in this way then complain about irresponsibel owners; it smacks of hypocrisy.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Christina Smith — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:26:16 GMT

Each case should be judged on it's individual merits and circumstances.Preferably by an independent panel of unbiased individuals. Obviously!

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Rob Loxley — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:06:28 GMT

[quote user="david hopper"] surgical risk to the mother[/quote]

Your evidence for greater problems than non-pregnant spay?

[quote user="david hopper"] how do we know the mortality rate or the potential complications and the possible suffering that could result from this?[/quote]

We perform a fair few caesarian-spays and pregnant spays of owned cats that we follow up.

[quote user="david hopper"] senseless destruction of living kittens[/quote]

Is euthanasia a welfare issue?
I see the argument above that the overall welfare of cat-kind may be improved by controlling the number of strays looking for homes.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:05:19 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]And attitudes change in 50 odd years.[/quote] Quite true Anthony, what we consider at best sub-optimal care and at worst neglect was much more the norm 50 years ago. I can even equate that to my parent's pets in hindsight.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Anthony Todd — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:54:50 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]That is evil [/quote]

Not my experience, remember these were people who were already pet owners and, as far as I remember none of them were returned or rehomed.

Some certainly were given, by word of mouth, to others anyway.

Sure, better to equate casual supply with genuine demand.

And attitudes change in 50 odd years.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:41:51 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Or you could use the old Goodmayes trick of placing the "unwanted" kittens, [usually dumped at the door in a cardboard box], in a white wire cage, in the waiting room with a notice:

"These kittens will be destroyed at 7.0pm unless someone gives them a home"

[/quote] That is evil - it is playing with people's emotions and encouraging them to take on a burden they may not be able to handle and would not have taken if they had time to consider it rationally. Half the problems we see in pets is due to idiots getting them without properly thinking of the consequences of whether they can cope with the animal or afford its upkeep. They don't need encouraging to do this.

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Mark Holmes — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:32:02 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]In fact I will add further, unless you have a means of actually increasing the number of good homes in a local area you don't do any good saving them. There is a finite number of good homes for cats in a given population beyond which you need to persuade people who don't want one/ can't afford one to take them on.[/quote]

Or you could use the old Goodmayes trick of placing the "unwanted" kittens, [usually dumped at the door in a cardboard box], in a white wire cage, in the waiting room with a notice:

"These kittens will be destroyed at 7.0pm unless someone gives them a home"

Mrs Kirby, nor I, never bumped one......and the Corporates, these days, would give you all brownie points as well!

[/quote] But that's exactly my point. The kittens yo rehomed to genuine good homes take up spaces that other rehoming centres could fill. Thus you make your problem into their problem. They cannot take on a cat and somewhere else a cat dies for lack of a home. Net benefit 0. Alternatively somebody with cats already takes on extra cattage. (Like baggage just with ears) cats are forced into closer and closer confinement thus creating stress fighting and behavioural problems. Net benefit zero or negative. Alternatively people who don't have time or money to keep them take on cats they cannot afford and you spend the rest of the week criticising people who take on cats irresponsibly. It is only useful when somebody who had never considered ever getting a cat gets one, who wasn't going to get one elsewhere and proves to be a genuine new good home - rare. And on a completely different issue every one of those kittens which go on to live outdoors will go on to slaughter the local wildlife like Dexter on stag weekend. Net lives saved -1000

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Anthony Todd — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:50:23 GMT

Or you could use the old Goodmayes trick of placing the "unwanted" kittens, [usually dumped at the door in a cardboard box], in a white wire cage, in the waiting room with a notice:

"These kittens will be destroyed at 7.0pm unless someone gives them a home"

Mrs Kirby, nor I, never bumped one......and the Corporates, these days, would give you all brownie points as well!

Re: Spaying Heavily Pregnant Queens

Rob Reid — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:49:06 GMT

Having done lots of work for RSPCA and CPL shelters over the years, I have often had to spay heavily pregnant queens and euthanase the kittens. These shelters are full to bursting and generally do not have the staff nor space to be able to accomodate a nursing queen and kittens. In the hands of an experience surgeon, I wouldn't say the risk of surgery is that much higher and I certainly don't feel it's a welfare issue especially if appropriate analgesia is used - it surely can't be any more traumatic than the process of giving birth.

Applying the same principle to feral cats - good luck finding people who will look after a feral mother after giving birth. It's difficult enough to catch these guys let alone give them a mother and kittens the care they would need after parturition. Common sense has to prevail in these situations and in the vast majority of case, allowing these cats to go on and have kittens is simply adding to the problem. I don't like having to spay a heavily pregnant cat and euthanase the kittens, indeed I hate it; but it's a necessary evil I am afraid.