Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Louise Buckley — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:12:14 GMT

Nah, stupid, a fundamentally male trait

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

sophia guymer — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:57:47 GMT

LOLOLOL, You ARE brave!!

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:42:05 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]

[quote user="Louise Buckley"] human 'entire' women were more likely to survive an RTA then men[/quote]

Confirms what I suspected all along. Women must therefore be better drivers!

[/quote]

or better padded...........

*runs for cover*

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

George Cooper — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:29:31 GMT

There is a study conducted some years ago, the link to which is long lost on my computer and in my brain, which points out that a neutered bitch will increase her life expectancy by two years.

This study was courtesy of the Pet Food Manufacturers Association and looked at over 70000 animals - yes, 70k - and the star was the tom-cat, who, if neutered, statistically doubled his life expectancy from only 7 years to 14 years.

I wish I had paid more attention because stats like these do make it easier to assist clients to make the right choices for their pets.

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Vikki Halliday LLB — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:45:35 GMT

[quote user="Louise Buckley"] human 'entire' women were more likely to survive an RTA then men[/quote]

Confirms what I suspected all along. Women must therefore be better drivers!

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Louise Buckley — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:09:25 GMT

I am dredging up this 'gem' from the back of my mind but I vaguely remembering reading the abstract of a study carried out years ago which found that human 'entire' women were more likely to survive an RTA then men but that this difference disappeared post menopause. I cannot remember the finer details of the study but the authors concluded that the oestrogen that 'entire, reproductively capable' women produced was exerting a protective antioxidant effect.

This sounds like complete ramblings from me now and a tenuous conclusion (given that I cannot remember/have not presented the info well!) but I can remember at the time thinking that sounds very interesting and relevant to the neutering debate. I would have found the info via pubmed if anyone wants to search for the link!

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:17:04 GMT

I have just had a long conversation with an owner of a Newfoundland regarding this subject. Apparently it is being recommended that giant breeds such as this should not be spayed under a year old.

I have fudged the issue as I am not convinced that this 'protective' effect is that clear cut. In my experience obesity in neutered dogs is much more of an issue and may account for at least some of this effect if you consider trauma an element in developing osteosarcoma.

Any views out there?

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Julian Earl — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:38:00 GMT

[quote user="Sandy Edwards"]

All deaths excluding cancer , what a load of crap !! Fags dont cause death if you exclude cancer and heart disease !! Of course they will get mammary cancer and the rest , have you noticed that large dogs get the most aggresive form of mammary cancer

[/quote]

Very interesting paper. In response to Sandy's comment just above, the author does state this: "In summary, we found female Rottweilers who kept their ovaries for at least 6 years were 4.6 times more likely to reach exceptional longevity (i.e. live >30 % longer than average) than females with the shortest ovary exposure. "

So, overall, the benefit may be there.

However, my immediate question is whether this apparent advantage would still be present if we left the ovaries but stopped the seasons, e.g. with proligesterone, until the bitches reached four and a half years or more?

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Allie Woodward — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:46:39 GMT

Interesting topic. I think the only way to proove if it is the oestrogens (or as a Canadian study - estrogens ) from the ovary that were a contributing factor to longevity would be to have a control group of female dogs and male dogs in whom you give exogenous physiological doses of oestrogens. Obviously not ethical or practical...

I think it would be interesting to look at the incidence of other reproductive related issues like endometrosis and mammary tumours before making a descision as although these are not causes necessarily of mortality they are causes of morbidity and medical intervention, and importantly for owners extra cost.

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Richard Carter — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:42:09 GMT

Quite possible if not probable if one considers the effects seen if a bitch loses another set of metabolic hormones such as the thyroid. However I was under the impression I was spaying to remove the effect and inconvenience of oestrus, sterilising to prevent welfare concerns of unwanted litters, preventing the risk of mammary cancer and reducing the other possible effects of cystic ovarian disease, pyometria etc.....

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:52:15 GMT

Hear Hear Sandy

Wynne

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Sandy Edwards — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:28:31 GMT

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

sophia guymer — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:54:20 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

3. How many dogs did he study (it might be in there, but if so I missed it)?

[/quote]

In the actual article:

Usual longevity N=100, Exceptoinal longevity N=83

Didn't get much further than that though

Sophia

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Cat Henstridge — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:30:09 GMT

Hi Guys,

Sorry about the first link, which is the original paper, dunno what I have done wrong! However, as Laurence points out, there is a link it at the bottom of the piece from the second link.

Cat

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Laurence Webb — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:57:57 GMT

Martin - I had the same problem withthe 1st link. Stupid computer was trying to send me cookies via the internet - you need to send biscuits wrapped up via the Royal Mail, not email.

At the bottom of the 2nd article is a link to the paper. Not got as far as reading it yet.

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:49:41 GMT

I'm confused The title is :keeping OVARIES etc I would definitely want cancer deaths included b4 deciding on this one.

Wynne

Re: Keeping ovaries = longer life?

Martin Jones — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:11:37 GMT

Wow.

I went for the second link, as the first one wouldn't let me have any cookies (whatever that means). I have to say, David Waters writes well, and is aware of the consequences of his argument in the wider veterinary field. How refreshing and welcome, on both counts.

Obviously, in an article like this, one can only make the bare bones of the argument and give the most significant findings. I'd have a couple of questions, though:

1. He talked about the strongest correlation between intact ovaries and longevity being shown when deaths from cancer were excluded. I'd want to know how many of the intact bitches died of cancer that was attributable to an intact reproductive state

2. He talked about the correlation in women under similar circumstances; do women get pyo?

3. How many dogs did he study (it might be in there, but if so I missed it)?

Just to be clear, it seemed to me that he was talking about ovarian status, not uterine status. It's definitely an interesting debate, the hysterectomy vs ovariohysterectomy argument. I make no bones about it, I don't like doing bitch spays and they probably represent the single biggest clinical stress that I have. I would LOVE to be clamping just above the ovary - imagine how much safer and quicker that would be.

This is a GOOD thread. Thanks, Cat.

Martin