Neutering

Re: Neutering

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:21:03 GMT

Huge amount of literature including some good, recent review articles on this subject.

To my mind, there is a lot of difference between dogs and bitches - pre-oestrus spaying has lots of patient and general advantages (red mammary tumour risk, red breeding potential, no seasons, no pyos, no ovarian tumours) with few drawbacks. Castration on the other hand has fewer benefits and more consequences for patient (entire and castrated dogs are quite different things). In our practice we advise the pre-oestrus neutering of all bitches not destined for breeding and the castration of those dogs only where a clinical need is believed to exist.

I have had lots of experience of stump pyos during my time in Southern Africa at a time when the South African vets thought it a good idea to "re-implant" a piece of ovary during routine spay procedures so that bitches "stayed female but couldn't get pregnant". Deeply stupid idea but a nice little earner!!!

Re: Neutering

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:12:06 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I saw a stump pyo in a bitch when I was seeing practice as a student, and even if the occurrence is low I think we could justify removal of the uterus at the same time, [/quote]

Was it a stump pyo of a uterine remnant left by poor surgical te3chnique during OVH?[/quote]

Probably! Was only a 3rd year, but as I recall spayed bitch presented like a pyo, had antibiotics etc and was discovered at exlap. Can only assume some uterus left other side of cervix, but bitch wasn't coming into season or attractive to males. Had been spayed many years previously.

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]The Utrecht study did not indicate any increased incidence of pyometra, stump pyometra or mammary carcinoma in animals which had OVE in comparison to OVH.

Does that change your views on things?[/quote]

I would have to read the study myself, and I can't find more than an abstract for free online!

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]I personally don't have a problem with recommending neutering per-se, however I am concerned that we are routinely carrying out major surgery (OVH), where a better, quicker, more welfare friendly method, (OVE) might be the most ethical option..[/quote]

Not sure how much less painful it is, but I do know that pulling on the ovaries is far more painful than dealing with the cervix! Assume we are talking conventional surgery for both approaches, not laproscopic? Not sure I could just remove the ovaries through much smaller hole. With adequate pain relief bitches I spay walk out wagging their tails.

What about the ones that become incontinent? Incurin (a drug I have found very useful and convenient) must be contraindicated if there's a uterus left!

Re: Neutering

Charlotte Marshall — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:14:58 GMT

I have been led to believe that if no ovarian tissue remains then a stump pyo should not be possible due to lack of hormonal influences. I don't know if anyone can confirm that!

I was interested to read the article which I presume sparked this debate as I was unaware that routine neutering was illegal in Scandinavia and it certainly made me think but I do not think it will stop me recommending it in the UK. I think cultural differences lead to different control methods being needed and I think the stray cat population in particular in the UK means routine neutering is necessary. I would not want to stop all routine neutering and then see packs of stray dogs either which had to be regularly culled to keep them under control which is what I have seen the third world.

I would class neutering as different from the other surgeries mentioned as certainly actual health benefits can be seen. I also believe I read an article years ago which actually implied a correlation with increased life expectancy - not that I am advocating neutering solely to try and increase life expectancy!

Re: Neutering

Vikki Halliday LLB — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:56:03 GMT

Was it a stump pyo of a uterine remnant left by poor surgical te3chnique during OVH?

The Utrecht study did not indicate any increased incidence of pyometra, stump pyometra or mammary carcinoma in animals which had OVE in comparison to OVH.

Does that change your views on things?

I personally don't have a problem with recommending neutering per-se, however I am concerned that we are routinely carrying out major surgery (OVH), where a better, quicker, more welfare friendly method, (OVE) might be the most ethical option.

There have also been a number of novel pharmaceutical preparations become available which carry out a form of chemical neutering, and which again may be a more welfare acceptable method of neutering.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Good idea getting people to think about what we all consider 'routine' surgeries![/quote]

I like getting people to think!

Re: Neutering

Vikki Moran — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:03:30 GMT

i think for a start - from my point of view, the comparison of neutering and tail docking is actually not a good one, since i think the biggest issue i have with tail docking is the fact it's done without anaesthesia. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that a neonate is any less sentient, or has any less perception of pain than a more mature animal (any who has had children and gone through the heel prick test can attest to that - and that's a simple blood sample from a 2-3 day old baby).

I think the issues i would consider really on the tails/debarking/declawing/neutering would be:

1. docking tails (aside from anaesthesia) removes from dogs a level of communication with other dogs. It can also result in pain (I have recently treated a docked dog for extreme neurological pain in the tail and hidlimbs, which i believe is related to docking), urinary or faecal problems. I have certainly seen several of those - usually in rotties, or boxers - generally dogs which are docked very proximally. it's arguable as to whether there is any specific benefit to a dog to dock it at a young age than to wait to amputate if the dog injures iself, and i think we can always go round in circles arguing that point.

2. debarking - similarly to docking, removes a form a communication from the dog. That said, I have a very noisy dog at home and sometimes I have to admit to thinking it would be great if i could stop him barking! I'm not sure if there's any other reason to class it as a mutilation, except that it's not done in any way for the welfare of the dog, only the convenience of owners. there's no justification as to why it may benefit the dog.

3. declawing - removes defence from the cat, as well as communication (so many people don't understand the importance of claws in territory marking etc). Not to mention that I believe it's a very painful post op period. certainly it's something that is purely done for owner benefit, there's no benefit to the cat whatsoever.

4. neutering - i think where this differs from the other points really is that there are benefits to owners and to pets from neutering. there are certainly studies which show that there are health reasons why neutering is of benefit - mammary tumours, pyometra, testicular tumours, prostate problems... I only work part time (3 days a week) but i must see at least one case a day on average that results from not being neutered, in fact on friday i saw one labrador with a rugby ball sized testicle (which the owners had ignored for a year, thinking it would go away), one cavalier with a prostate enlargement (and no so old that it's mitral valve insufficiency really rules out any anaesthesia), a yorkie with mammary tumours, and a crossbred bitch with pyometra. Arguments against neutering include growth and development issues (well personally I don't do early neutering - i too prefer to go with bitches after a first season, and dogs when they are fully grown), incontinence in spayed bitches - i don't know how common this really is - i don't see very many of those?

so for me i think that i believe the benefits of neutering outweigh the risks, but i can appreciate that others will feel differently - we can't all think the same way after all! I'm not sure i could apply the same to any of the other issues raised. I think one could argue the same might apply to tail docking, but i don't think it's such a high risk to leave them undocked as it is to leave a bitch unspayed. for example a bitch that develops mammary tumours may well have developed mets before it's presented, and therefore the life span of the dog has been reduced, or a bitch presenting with a pyometra is a high risk but emergency procedure - a dog with a tail injury is not a higher risk anaesthesia in itself, nor in many cases is it such an emergency that it cannot be stabilised first if there are complicating factors.

so... i'm still all for neutering, on a case by case basis.

As for the stray dogs issue. I don't know if that's actually got anything to do with neutering or not. I wonder if it's more related to attitudes towards pet keeping in general. In the UK people claim to be animal lovers, but it's not uncommon to abandon dogs, they are not usually traceable, and there are certainly areas where dogs are allowed to roam free for exercise!

Re: Neutering

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:55:56 GMT

I always thought it was a little strange the amount of time our Profession has spent discussing tail docking puppies, but removing a bitches ovaries and uterus or a dogs testicles is fine. I can't see anyone in England thinking declawing cats is ok or debarking dogs - often done in USA same time as routine neutering. Good idea getting people to think about what we all consider 'routine' surgeries!

Personally I recommend neutering of bitches 3 months after the first season, and castrate dogs once they reach full adult size. For bitches I think (IMO) this is the best compromise with the incontinence/mammary cancer balance.

I saw a stump pyo in a bitch when I was seeing practice as a student, and even if the occurrence is low I think we could justify removal of the uterus at the same time, through the same wound as the ovaries, rather than subjecting some animals to a further surgery! Can't see leaving the uterus would take much less time, they don't have a use for the uterus.