The incidence of uterine pathology in ovariectomised bitches
a Knowledge Summary by
Maria Norell Candetoft DVM 1*
1Djursjukhuset AniCura Albano, Rinkebyvägen 21A, 182 36 Danderyd, Sweden
*Corresponding Author (maria.norell.candetoft@anicura.se)
Vol 5, Issue 3 (2020)
Published: 18 Sep 2020
Reviewed by: Soon Hon Cheong (DVM PhD) and Sebastian Patrick Arlt (Dipl ECAR)
Next review date: 24 Jan 2020
DOI: 10.18849/VE.V5I3.331
What is the incidence of postoperative uterine pathology in ovariectomised bitches compared to ovariohysterectomised bitches?
Clinical bottom line
Category of research question
Incidence
The number and type of study designs reviewed
Three retrospective case series
Strength of evidence
Weak
Outcomes reported
None of the reviewed case series found any uterine pathology for ovariectomised bitches in the long-term follow-up of several years, although none of the studies performed a proper gynaecological examination to confirm a lack of pathology
Conclusion
With the limited evidence available, it appears that leaving the uterus when gonadectomising bitches does not seem to have a high risk for developing pathology as long as the ovaries are completely removed.
How to apply this evidence in practice
The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care
Clinical scenario
You work at a small animal clinic and an owner comes to you with her intact female dog to discuss gonadectomy. She has heard that it is better to remove the uterus together with the ovaries because of the risk for the development of pyometra than to leave the uterus in the bitch. She wants to know your opinion on this subject.
The evidence
Three papers were identified which addresses the PICO question and meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. All three studies identified were retrospective case series. The number of cases included in the studies was moderately high: 278 (Corriveau et al., 2017), 264 (Okkens et al., 1997) and 72 (Janssens & Janssens, 1991).
The studies describe short- and long-term outcomes after different surgical sterilisation methods in bitches: laparoscopic ovariectomy (LapOVE) and laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy (LapOVH) (Corriveau et al, 2017), ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy via laparotomy and ovariectomy (Okkens et al, 1997) and bilateral flank ovariectomy (Janssons et al, 1991). All of the studies also include an owner questionnaire to identify long-term complications. The subjective nature of owner assessment may introduce bias.
Corriveau et al. (2017) compared the outcome between laparoscopic ovariectomy with ovariohysterectomy in 278 cases, the medical records were examined and responses to a questionnaire were developed and provided. None of the dogs in the two groups that were available during a 10 year follow-up (207 out of 278) developed clinical signs of uterine pathology.
Okkens et al. (1997) compared the outcome of 264 bitches that had been randomly selected for either ovariectomy or ovariohysterectomy. A questionnaire concentrated on the occurrence of problems related to abnormalities of the urogenital tract (i.e. vaginal discharge, attracting male dogs, and urinary incontinence) was sent to the owners 8 to 11 years after surgery. Complete data from 69 bitches in the ovariectomy group and for 66 bitches in the ovariohysterectomy group (135 out of 264) were available and analysed. No symptoms from the abdominal cavity as a consequence of the surgery were observed by any of the owners. Vaginal discharge was reported in two bitches in each group, the discharge was not severe and not accompanied by any apparent illness. Ovariectomy: discharge started 6 and 10 years after surgery, the discharge was colourless and was noticed in regular, but not cyclic, time intervals. Ovariohysterectomy: discharge started 3 months and 10 years after surgery, the discharge was whiteish and occurred regularly but not cyclic. Only one of these four bitches was presented to a veterinarian because of this problem, the article does not say what kind of diagnostics were used to examine the dog and no conclusion of the cause of the discharge is mentioned. None of the bitches were sexually attractive to male dogs after the sterilisation procedure.
Janssons & Janssons (1991) described the outcome in 72 bitches that underwent bilateral flank ovariectomy, the owners received a questionnaire between 4 and 9 years after the operation and none of the bitches had developed pyometra.
Article
|
Ovariectomy (number) |
Ovariohysterectomy (number) |
Follow-up time (years) |
Uterine pathology (%) |
Corriveau et al. (2017)
|
147 |
131 |
14 d – 10 y |
0 |
Okkens et al. (1997)
|
126 |
138 |
8–11 |
0 |
Janssons & Janssons (1991)
|
72 |
0 |
4–9 |
0 |
Even though the evidence presented in the three articles is far from the ideal grade I (meta-analyses of randomised, controlled trials or evidence obtained at least from one properly randomised, controlled trial), the high number of cases all presenting the same result, no signs of uterine pathology, is suggestive that leaving the uterus during gonadectomy does not appear to dramatically increase the occurrence of pyometra and may be considered reasonably safe. To raise the quality of the evidence, these bitches should have undergone a proper gynaecological examination.
Summary of the evidence
Population: | Female neutered dogs, located in the USA, from 125 breeds. Most common breeds included Great Dane (11%), Labrador Retriever (10%) and Golden Retriever (6%).
Dogs were required to have undergone a LapOVH or a LapOVE. Cases were excluded if records were incomplete, sterilisation was performed because of a neoplastic process, or the dog was found to have previously been sterilised. |
Sample size: | 278 dogs:
|
Intervention details: | The medical record database of the Ryan Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania was reviewed to identify eligible cases. The medical records from shelter-owned and client-owned female dogs undergoing LapOVH or LapOVE during a 14 days to 10-year period from October 2003 through October 2013 were included.
Data collected from the medical record consisted of breed, age, body weight, body condition score, history of urinary tract abnormalities, preoperative systemic disease, number of laparoscopic ports used, surgeon experience, total duration of anaesthesia, LapOVE or LapOVH procedure time, additional procedures performed, intraoperative surgical complications, immediate postoperative complications, duration of hospitalisation, and short-term postoperative incisional complications. Long-term follow-up (>14 days to 10 years after surgery) to assess postoperative complications and overall owner satisfaction was conducted by means of a questionnaire administered by telephone or email.
|
Study design: | Retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: | The short- and long-term follow up information regarding complications after LapOVH vs LapOVE |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
Short-term follow-up information (≤ 14 days after surgery) was available for 91/131 (69.4%) in the LapOVH group and 133/147 (90.5%) in the LapOVE group. In total 54 dogs were lost to short-term follow-up.
Long-term follow-up information was available for 82/131 patients (62.6%) in the LapOVH group and in 125/147 patients (85%) in the LapOVE group.
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: | Female neutered dogs, located in the Netherlands. Breeds represented with more than six bitches were German Shepherds (11), Bouviers des Flandres (11) and Dobermanns (8). The age of the bitches at the time of surgery ranged from 0.8–9.9 years (median 1.5 years) in the ovariectomy group and from 1.0–12.0 years (median 2.5 years) in the ovariohysterectomy group. All bitches had experienced at least one oestrus before neutering. The body mass at the time of the surgery ranged from 1.6 to 37.5 kg (median 22.0 kg) in the ovariectomy group and from 5.0 to 37.5 kg (median 20.5 kg) in the ovariohysterectomy group.
Cases were excluded if records were incomplete, sterilisation was performed because of a neoplastic process or the dog was found to have previously been sterilised. |
Sample size: | 264 neutered dogs:
|
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Retrospective randomised case series |
Outcome Studied: | Comparison between differences in short-term and long-term complications after ovariohysterectomy vs ovariectomy |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: | Ovariectomised female dogs from 27 different breeds.
The weight of the bitches at the time of surgery ranged from 1.3 and 55 kg (mean 15.3 kg) and the age varied between 0.5–7.0 years (mean 2.2 years). |
Sample size: | 72 dogs |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Non-comparative retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: | Determination of short-term and long-term complications after ovariectomy |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
In one dog an enlarged uterus was removed. In one obese dog the ovarian bursa was not found on the left side. Therefore, a ventral midline incision was used to approach this ovary. Short-term complications:
Long-term complications:
|
Limitations: |
|
Appraisal, application and reflection
Only three studies were identified that addressed the PICO question and these studies were retrospective case series. Thus, the evidence base for answering the question is limited, but at least all three of the studies did not report a case where uterine pathology developed in an ovariectomised bitch.
Van Goethem et al. (2006) reviewed the outcome for ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy, and they found that there was no difference in outcome when they analysed the present literature comparing the two methods. Ovariectomy did not lead to any pathologic changes in the remaining uterus. Bitches undergoing ovariectomy did not show symptoms of pyometra or endometritis years after the surgery.
In 1958, Dow reported the ability to experimentally induce cystic endometrial hyperplasia (CEH) or CEH-endometritis by administration of progesterone, even in ovariectomised bitches. Withdrawal of the progesterone treatment causes regression of the experimentally produced disease. Similarly, ovariectomy leads to regression of the natural disease (Dow, 1958), thus exposure to progestogen appears to be necessary for the development of CEH-endometritis and that is the main proposed answer to why the uterus seems to remain healthy after ovariectomy (Okkens et al. 1997).
Stump pyometra have been reported in bitches that have had an improperly performed ovariohysterectomy in association with ovarian remnant syndrome, breaks in aseptic technique, or exogenous progesterone administration (De Tora & McCarthy, 2011; Van Goethem et al., 2006; Janssens & Janssens, 1991; and Okkens et al., 1997).
Uterine neoplasia can develop after ovariectomy; however, uterine tumors are reportedly rare (0.03%) and are benign in 85% to 90% of the cases (Brodey, 1967). Therefore, the overall risk has to be balanced against the disadvantages of ovariohysterectomy compared with ovariectomy in terms of surgical time, additional trauma, and potential complications.
It is important to note that none of the articles reviewed performed any diagnostic tests as part of the follow-up, and all three articles relied solely on owner responses to the questionnaires for data on uterine pathology or ovarian remnants. Also, in the study by Corriveau et al. (2017) 15% of the patients in the group that underwent ovariectomy were lost to follow-up and in the study by Okkens et al. (1997) 45% of the ovariectomised patients were lost to follow-up and the status of the remaining uterus in those patients is unknown.
To bring more evidence to properly answer the PICO question, a randomised multi-centre prospective study should be done with active follow-up including diagnostic workup (ultrasound, vaginal cytology, luteinizing hormone (LH) test, anti-muellerian-hormone tests etc.) to confirm the lack of uterine pathology or ovarian remnant occurring for a period of at least 5 to 10 years after the surgery.
Methodology Section
Search Strategy | |
Databases searched and dates covered: | CAB Abstracts on the OVID interface 1973–2020 Week 03
PubMed accessed via the NCBI website 1910–Jan 2020 |
Search strategy: | CAB Abstracts:
PubMed:
|
Dates searches performed: | 24 Jan 2020 |
Exclusion / Inclusion Criteria | |
Exclusion: |
|
Inclusion: |
|
Search Outcome | ||||||
Database |
Number of results |
Excluded – Not relevant to the PICO question |
Excluded – Not in English |
Excluded – Review papers, proceedings, conference papers or book chapters |
Excluded – Wrong species |
Total relevant papers |
CAB Abstracts |
578 | 424 | 94 | 32 | 25 | 3 |
PubMed |
317 | 251 | 22 | 8 | 34 | 2 |
Total relevant papers when duplicates removed |
3 |
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Intellectual Property Rights
Authors of Knowledge Summaries submitted to RCVS Knowledge for publication will retain copyright in their work, and will be required to grant to RCVS Knowledge a non-exclusive licence to publish including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the materials in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to licence or permit others to do so.
Disclaimer
Knowledge Summaries are a peer-reviewed article type which aims to answer a clinical question based on the best available current evidence. It does not override the responsibility of the practitioner. Informed decisions should be made by considering such factors as individual clinical expertise and judgement along with patient’s circumstances and owners’ values. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help inform and any opinions expressed within the Knowledge Summaries are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the RCVS Knowledge. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the content. While the Editor and Publisher believe that all content herein are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication, they accept no legal responsibility for any errors or omissions, and make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to material contained within. For further information please refer to our Terms of Use.