Hysterectomy For Puppy

[stormie]

The thing I think of is, is it fair to still keep those hormones if the dog is never going to be allowed to mate/breed? Surely the dogs can just be desexed later in life once they have matured, which enables them to grow properly? Having an entire male myself (and counting down the days till he's desexed!!) I can see how driven by his hormones he is - I don't want him to be constantly on the scent of a bitch, or feeling competitive to other entire males, when there's not going to be any point to it... JMO

I was always under the impression that the cancers of the reproductive organs were more common in non breeding entire dogs, rather than those who did breed the occasional litter, which explains why all breeders dogs aren't rife with cancer..

Edited October 23, 2008 by stormie

[morgan]

Many of my entire show dogs are never bred from and don't have cancer anywhere, let alone in the reproductive organs. I have only had 2 cases of mammary cancer in over 20 years of keeping entire bitches - both were sorted with a lumpectomy at the same time as spaying.

Desexing has been shown to increase rates of cancer in dogs, so whilst eliminating cancer of reproductive organs it actually increases the chance overall. Splenic and cardiac hemangiosarcomas are usually fatal and can't be fixed with a lumpectomy.

What's so hard about keeping a bitch entire? She is only going to be actively looking for a boy for a couple of weeks or so each year - not getting one sure isn't going to be bad for her mental health

[Clyde]

I definitely do not want to breed and don’t want Lili to get pregnant but I want her to grow properly and don’t really like the idea of depriving her of natural hormones.

OMG! She's a freakin dog - she doesn't know what's natural & what's not! Do you care if she gets ovarian cancer? Who in their right mind would want a dog still coming into heat even though it's desexed. Talk about crazy!

-WithEverythingIAm

Wow

Good on you for researching your options Aussie3. I am going through the same process myself with my pup.

[stormie]

You can never prove that desexing increases cancer. Unless you go back in time and leave the dogs who were desexed and got cancer entire, and show they never developed cancer, you can't prove it.

Dogs are living longer these days because we have more improved vet technology. We can test for health conditions and breed them out. We can fix congenital problems through surgery and do things like knee reconstructions and hip replacements. They have to die of something eventually and fact is we are able to diagnose and treat many conditions that we weren't able to in the past, which they very likely could have died from at an earlier age, before developing cancer.

I think we need to be more concerned about the diets we are feeding and the chemicals we are putting in them as more potential causes for cancer.

Edited October 24, 2008 by stormie

[Trisven13]

a dog can still have a behavioral issue without its testicles or ovaries. Its rediculous too that some vets only entertain the idea that a dog wil behave if its desexed and if it has problems after, well, its just a BAD DOG! yup. some do.

WEIA what do you think about leaving one ovary in to prevent problems like hormonal incontinence etc in dogs down the track? Technically a dog only needs one ovary not two anyway but they wouldnt really cycle.

There is a vet promoting this option now but I cant find the link *DAMMIT* I lose everything ...

I'd love to know what percentage of bitches have incontinence issues after desexing. I've desexed around 800 dogs in 4 years. If half of those were bitches that makes 400. Realistically we rescue more dogs than bitches so I'll take that number down to 300.

I've NEVER had a report of any of those bitches have incontinence. Not one....

The only bitch I have with incontinence issues is Grandma my ancient entire kelpie who has a perineal tumour.

I can accept that a dog grows differently when desexed young and would probably, with my own dogs, wait until they were older before desexing but I can't see that there is a real risk of incontinence from my experience and I would think I have a greater experience with this than the average person.I've had more cases of mammary tumours than incontinence.

[morgan]

I'd love to know what percentage of bitches have incontinence issues after desexing. I've desexed around 800 dogs in 4 years. If half of those were bitches that makes 400. Realistically we rescue more dogs than bitches so I'll take that number down to 300.

Here is an interesting and very extensive article on urinary incontinence in bitches -

http://www.cdoca.org/health%20articles/Incontinence.pdf

Incontinence in Spayed Bitches: Frequency, Causes & Therapy

Iris Reichler, Madeleine Hubler and Susi Arnold, Vetsuisse-Faculty, University of

Zurich, Switzerland

Urinary incontinence (UI) is the involuntary loss of urine. UI rarely occurs in sexually

intact bitches (0-1%)1, whereas in spayed bitches the incidence is up to 20%2. The

underlying pathophysiological mechanism is a reduced closure pressure of the urethra

after spaying3.

The causal relationship between the removal of the ovaries and UI has been clearly

demonstrated4.

[Trisven13]

So given those figures up to 60 dogs that I've desexed would have urinary incontinence - surely I would have heard about it if that was the case? I know you're big on natural stuff etc Morgan and I'm not trying to be a smartarse but I just can't see how if those figures were accurate, I wouldn't have heard about it in the dogs I've know and that the ONLY case of it is in an entire bitch. If it was such a big risk surely I would see it??????

[Sam&Saki]

Hi Aussie3

I first joined this forum as I was in the same position you are in now. I was asking for recommendations to a reproductive specialist vet who would be aware of the statistics, risks, research etc in this field. Very very few people replied to me but at least I didn't get some of the ignorant responses you are. You are best off either reading the research yourself or finding a specialist in the field to explain it to you.

You're right, both the RSPCA and the AVA recommend across the board desexing at 6 months for all dogs, and recommend desexing bitches by ovario-hysterectomy. However just because it is policy, just because it is good advice to try to control dog overpopulation, doesn't mean it is the best thing for the health of your individual dog.

In fact ovario-hysterectomy of dogs is frowned upon as a selfish and unecessary risk to a dogs health for the convenience of its owner in much of Europe.

For those who are unaware, there are risks and benefits, including cancer concerns, for both courses of action - spaying or not spaying.

Benefits of spaying female large breed dog:

1. Reduces risk of mammary tumours x7

2. Almost eradicates risk of pyometra

3. On average, increases longevity

4. Eliminates risk of pregnancy & need to deal with bitch going on heat

5. Reduces risk of ovarian, cervical & uterine tumours (Risk v low: <0.5%)

6. Reduces risk or perianal fissues

7. Lessens risk of socially dimorphic behaviour

Risks of spaying female large breed dog:

1. Doubles risk of osteosarcoma (Risk v high: cause of death of 1 in 3)

2. Increases risk of hemagiosarcoma x2.2 - x5 (Risk v high: most common cause of death)

3. Increases risk of orthopedic disorders (doubles risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture; triples risk of patellar luxation)

4. Causes urinary incontinence in 4 - 20% of dogs

5. Triples the risk of hypthyroidism

6. Increases risk of adverse reactions to hypothyroidism

7. Increases risk of geriatric cognitive impairment

8. Doubles risk of urinary tract tumours / bladder cancer / TCC of the bladder x2-4 (Risk v low: <1%)

9. Increases risk of persistant or reccurent UTIs x3-4

10.Doubles risk of obesity

So in fact a spayed bitch is actually MORE likely to develop cancer than an entire bitch.

Leaving the ovaries intact would mean the bitch continues to have normal hormone production, which should negate any increase in those cancer risks. However, as we all know, leaving the ovaries in tact also means facing an increased risk of the cancer risks from the other side - ovarian and mammary tumours, etc.

It is a difficult issue and no-one should judge another's decision, as long as they have explored all options and done what they believe to be in the best interest of their dog. Good luck with sorting it out for your pup x

[Sam&Saki]

Ooops, double post!

ETA: Well if I accidentally made a double post, I may as well use it

There is another option - non-surgical desexing. It's an implant. Most people are aware of the male one but few are aware of the female option - but it is an option, although again you'll have to go to a specific repro specialist to discuss whether it's right for your dog and/or to get it.

There are a few repro specialists in Aus who travel to Europe to lecture on this topic and undertake study and so forth. PM me for a name.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Sam&Saki

[morgan]

So given those figures up to 60 dogs that I've desexed would have urinary incontinence - surely I would have heard about it if that was the case? I know you're big on natural stuff etc Morgan and I'm not trying to be a smartarse but I just can't see how if those figures were accurate, I wouldn't have heard about it in the dogs I've know and that the ONLY case of it is in an entire bitch. If it was such a big risk surely I would see it??????

Did you look at the link? It goes into great detail about the incidence, with graphs measuring the rates for different sized bitches, age of spay etc. The incidence is higher in larger dogs, so if the ones you have seen tend to be more on the smaller side maybe this would help explain it? I don't know? Re feedback, would you have been told? Have you specifically asked all the owners?

There is also the timing to consider - I think the article mentioned a mean age of 2.9 yrs after spaying for the onset of UI in those that did develop it. This obviously means that half the bitches took longer than 2.9 yrs. If you've been rescuing for 4 years there's a good chance that many of the spayed bitches have been done too recently to have developed it yet.

I agree with you that you would have expected to see more by now, but there are a lot of variables and a lot of studies with small numbers. Some breeds are affected worse than others, so even more variables. One study I saw had a sample of 65% of spayed boxers with UI, yet I know approximately 5 with no UI at all. Most studies I have read talk about up to 20% of desexed bitches getting UI, with the higher figures in the larger breeds - I know of quite a few cases amongst my customers' dogs, ranging from malts to weis in size.

Lots of variables, not enough research and not enough options

[morgan]

There is another option - non-surgical desexing. It's an implant. Most people are aware of the male one but few are aware of the female option - but it is an option, although again you'll have to go to a specific repro specialist to discuss whether it's right for your dog and/or to get it.

Does this implant work by suppressing hormones? If so what physiological difference is there from spaying if the bitch still has unnatural hormone levels?

[Sam&Saki]

There is another option - non-surgical desexing. It's an implant. Most people are aware of the male one but few are aware of the female option - but it is an option, although again you'll have to go to a specific repro specialist to discuss whether it's right for your dog and/or to get it.

Does this implant work by suppressing hormones? If so what physiological difference is there from spaying if the bitch still has unnatural hormone levels?

No idea! I had not heard of it til our specialist mentioned it in our last visit. I suspect it works by keeping the bitch in a pregnancy like state hormone-wise, but I'll certainly be discussing it more with him next time, and asking for a proper name / term so I can research it too

My girl can't be desexed yet for other medical reasons, so we have some time to learn more. Anyone who needs to desex sooner should get in and discuss it with a specialist, I am certainly not one, I only know enough to find a good specialist and go to them, and maybe read what other good specialists have researched and written, and then do what seems best for your individual dog x

[Charles Kuntz]

1. Doubles risk of osteosarcoma (Risk v high: cause of death of 1 in 3)

2. Increases risk of hemagiosarcoma x2.2 - x5 (Risk v high: most common cause of death)

3. Increases risk of orthopedic disorders (doubles risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture; triples risk of patellar luxation)

4. Causes urinary incontinence in 4 - 20% of dogs

5. Triples the risk of hypthyroidism

6. Increases risk of adverse reactions to hypothyroidism

7. Increases risk of geriatric cognitive impairment

8. Doubles risk of urinary tract tumours / bladder cancer / TCC of the bladder x2-4 (Risk v low: <1%)

9. Increases risk of persistant or reccurent UTIs x3-4

10.Doubles risk of obesity

Be very careful interpreting the above statistics from the previous posting. Note in that in all of the above mentioned studies, the INCIDENCE of the stated diseases was higher, but there was never a CAUSE AND EFFECT shown or even suggested. Remember that there are confounding factors- it has already been stated that neutered dogs dogs live longer. Dogs that live longer get more cancer. Dogs that are neutered have already not died from roaming related accidents, pyometras, pregnancy related deaths, etc. It would be impossible to prove a cause and effect. To say that it increases the risk of anything is JUST NOT TRUE. All that is ever suggested is that in a particular study, the incidence of a certain disease in neutered dogs was higher in their study population, not that neutering increased the incidence. Could it be that people in the general pet owning population (NOT AMONGST HIGHLY MOTIVATED AND CONCERNED BREEDERS) that neutered their pets were more likely to care enough to bring their sick pets for treatment??? I think that the most important statistic is that neutered dogs live longer. That is all I need to hear.

Charles

[MissAloof]

I had Buju done nearly 2 weeks ago, so even though it's very early days she's so far fine. Little breed, was just on 5 months.

I didn't have a problem with getting her done at all, not at all bothered about what may or may not be so-called natural etc. fwiw, I'm female and if things like tube tying were available decades ago for women without children, then I would have considered that for myself. Sorry if that's too much info, but I reckon there's no point taking chances when there's no need to with such topics as babies etc, whether for humans, dogs, cats, whatever.

I don't know if this is accurate or not, but a lot of stuff on the net states that blokes have the biggest problem with desexing their dogs, especially if their dogs are big breed, seem to take it personally or something. Down here in ACT I notice a lot of strays are big "blokey" macho dogs, always undesexed.

Back to Buju, she was quite sleepy after, then started chewing her stitches and I had a collar put on. She seemed really dejected after that and it caused problems with her doggy door, but perked up when I took her for little walks and gave some treats, on Sat. we had the stitches out, collar off and she's been on cloud nine ever since.

[Sam&Saki]

1. Doubles risk of osteosarcoma (Risk v high: cause of death of 1 in 3)

2. Increases risk of hemagiosarcoma x2.2 - x5 (Risk v high: most common cause of death)

3. Increases risk of orthopedic disorders (doubles risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture; triples risk of patellar luxation)

4. Causes urinary incontinence in 4 - 20% of dogs

5. Triples the risk of hypthyroidism

6. Increases risk of adverse reactions to hypothyroidism

7. Increases risk of geriatric cognitive impairment

8. Doubles risk of urinary tract tumours / bladder cancer / TCC of the bladder x2-4 (Risk v low: <1%)

9. Increases risk of persistant or reccurent UTIs x3-4

10.Doubles risk of obesity

Be very careful interpreting the above statistics from the previous posting. Note in that in all of the above mentioned studies, the INCIDENCE of the stated diseases was higher, but there was never a CAUSE AND EFFECT shown or even suggested. Remember that there are confounding factors- it has already been stated that neutered dogs dogs live longer. Dogs that live longer get more cancer. Dogs that are neutered have already not died from roaming related accidents, pyometras, pregnancy related deaths, etc. It would be impossible to prove a cause and effect. To say that it increases the risk of anything is JUST NOT TRUE. All that is ever suggested is that in a particular study, the incidence of a certain disease in neutered dogs was higher in their study population, not that neutering increased the incidence. Could it be that people in the general pet owning population (NOT AMONGST HIGHLY MOTIVATED AND CONCERNED BREEDERS) that neutered their pets were more likely to care enough to bring their sick pets for treatment??? I think that the most important statistic is that neutered dogs live longer. That is all I need to hear.

Charles

Good point re: correlations being very different to causal links. While it is difficult to deny the correlations, there is some debate about whether causal links have in fact been proven. I'm not sure what you meant by "the above mentioned studies" as I didn't post my reference list, however some of the studies I read were definitely based on correlations with no research into causal links. There are quite possibly other factors in play.

However this argument can apply each way.

Could it be that people in the general pet owning population that neutered their pets were more likely to care enough to bring their sick pets for treatment?

Agreed. This could well explain why neutered pets live longer than entire pets, despite higher incidences of cancer.

I'll still be going with my specialists advice, although may get a 2nd opinion first - it's a confusing issue and I don't think anyone on either side can accuse others of "wanting their dog to get cancer." All we can do is what we feel and have been advised is best for our own individual dog :D

Great to see a specialist contributing to this thread x

[Charles Kuntz]

Sorry, when I mentioned the above mentioned studies, I was referring to the references behind the data you are reporting (that I had to read many moons ago when studying for my surgical boards : ).

Thanks,

Charles

[Dame Aussie]

Hi Aussie3

I first joined this forum as I was in the same position you are in now. I was asking for recommendations to a reproductive specialist vet who would be aware of the statistics, risks, research etc in this field. Very very few people replied to me but at least I didn't get some of the ignorant responses you are. You are best off either reading the research yourself or finding a specialist in the field to explain it to you.

You're right, both the RSPCA and the AVA recommend across the board desexing at 6 months for all dogs, and recommend desexing bitches by ovario-hysterectomy. However just because it is policy, just because it is good advice to try to control dog overpopulation, doesn't mean it is the best thing for the health of your individual dog.

In fact ovario-hysterectomy of dogs is frowned upon as a selfish and unecessary risk to a dogs health for the convenience of its owner in much of Europe.

For those who are unaware, there are risks and benefits, including cancer concerns, for both courses of action - spaying or not spaying.

Benefits of spaying female large breed dog:

1. Reduces risk of mammary tumours x7

2. Almost eradicates risk of pyometra

3. On average, increases longevity

4. Eliminates risk of pregnancy & need to deal with bitch going on heat

5. Reduces risk of ovarian, cervical & uterine tumours (Risk v low: <0.5%)

6. Reduces risk or perianal fissues

7. Lessens risk of socially dimorphic behaviour

Risks of spaying female large breed dog:

1. Doubles risk of osteosarcoma (Risk v high: cause of death of 1 in 3)

2. Increases risk of hemagiosarcoma x2.2 - x5 (Risk v high: most common cause of death)

3. Increases risk of orthopedic disorders (doubles risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture; triples risk of patellar luxation)

4. Causes urinary incontinence in 4 - 20% of dogs

5. Triples the risk of hypthyroidism

6. Increases risk of adverse reactions to hypothyroidism

7. Increases risk of geriatric cognitive impairment

8. Doubles risk of urinary tract tumours / bladder cancer / TCC of the bladder x2-4 (Risk v low: <1%)

9. Increases risk of persistant or reccurent UTIs x3-4

10.Doubles risk of obesity

So in fact a spayed bitch is actually MORE likely to develop cancer than an entire bitch.

Leaving the ovaries intact would mean the bitch continues to have normal hormone production, which should negate any increase in those cancer risks. However, as we all know, leaving the ovaries in tact also means facing an increased risk of the cancer risks from the other side - ovarian and mammary tumours, etc.

It is a difficult issue and no-one should judge another's decision, as long as they have explored all options and done what they believe to be in the best interest of their dog. Good luck with sorting it out for your pup x

Thanks Sam

Your comment on ovario-hysterectomy being seen as selfish by the owner is something that I have heard also. Then I was discussing this with my mother and she said exactly the same thing. As a dog owner I accept any extra responsibility for my dog whenever it is required, this being one area.

The research is difficult to interpret due to cause and effect issues as Charles said and thats another I have to take into account, but I'm glad I'm not the only one exploring my options

I'll definitely be speaking to a specialist, I'll PM you for their details.