JAAHA Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Veenis, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Veenis, M.
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 40:2 (2004)
© 2004 American Animal Hospital Association

Speaking Out

Dear Editor,

I would like to compliment Dr. Austin, et al., for their article titled Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy in Nine Dogs ( J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:391–396[Abstract/Free Full Text]), in which they describe a new, minimally invasive technique for the sterilization of female dogs.

Dr. Austin and her colleagues state that ovariohysterectomy is a necessity for many of our domestic animals, aiding in population control, disease prophylaxis, therapeutics, and behavior modification. In my opinion, this statement is incorrect. These objectives can be accomplished by performing a simple ovariectomy, rather than the more invasive, full ovariohysterectomy. There is no indication to perform an ovariohysterectomy in healthy, nongravid bitches.1,2 Since many of the complications seen with ovariohysterectomies can be attributed to the cervical stump and the transection of the broad ligament,3,4 many now advocate ovariectomy as the procedure of choice for the sterilization of female dogs.

Since the authors’ goal is to explore minimally invasive techniques for the sterilization of female dogs, I would like to hear their arguments supporting the use of a full ovariohysterectomy on healthy, nongravid animals instead of the less-invasive ovariectomy procedure. In my opinion, minimally invasive surgery should start with limiting the surgical trauma to the least amount necessary.

Marco Veenis, DVM

From the Okanagan Veterinary Hospital, 3355 Sexsmith Road, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1X 7T5.

References

  1. Okkens AC, Kooistra HS, Nickel RF. Comparison of long-term effects of ovariectomy versus ovariohysterectomy in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1997;51:227–231.[Medline]
  2. Stone EA. Ovary and uterus. In: Slatter DH, ed. Small animal surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002:1487–1502.
  3. Okkens AC, Dieleman SJ, Van der Gaag I. Gynaecologische complicaties na ovariohysterectomie bij de hond ten gevolge van: 1. Het incompleet verwijderen van de ovaria. 2. Een ontsteking van de uterus-cervix stimp. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 1981; 106:1142–1158.[Medline]
  4. Okkens AC, Van der Gaag I, Biewenga WJ, Rothuizen J, Voorhout G. Urologische complicaties na ovariohysterectomie bij de hond. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 1981;106:1189–1198.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Veenis, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Veenis, M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS