Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Laparoscopic vs open surgery for dogs with pyometra benefits and risks
By Brückner, Michael & Dörfelt, Rene·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2024·1Awake Djursjukhus Stockholm·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Advantages of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy versus open ovariohysterectomy for dogs with pyometra not detected in randomized clinical trial.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 12 female dogs with a serious infection of the uterus called pyometra underwent surgery to remove their reproductive organs. Half of the dogs had laparoscopic-assisted surgery, which is less invasive, while the other half had traditional open surgery. The laparoscopic surgery took longer but resulted in smaller incisions, and fewer dogs in that group needed extra pain relief afterward, although the difference wasn't significant. Overall, the study found that while laparoscopic surgery has some benefits, it also requires more time and specialized equipment compared to the traditional method.
People also search for: dog pyometra surgery options · laparoscopic surgery for dogs · open surgery recovery for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare results for surgery time, perioperative pain, need for rescue analgesia, variables, serum C-reactive protein concentration, and postoperative complications for dogs with pyometra treated with laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy (LaOVH) versus open-surgery (OS) ovariohysterectomy. ANIMALS: 12 client-owned dogs with pyometra between June 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. METHODS: Dogs enrolled in this prospective single-center randomized clinical trial had pyometra confirmed by history, physical examination, ultrasonography, and blood work and were randomly assigned to treatment group LaOVH or OS. Differences in results for variables of interest were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test, except the number of dogs requiring rescue analgesia was analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Values of P ≤ .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: 6 dogs were recruited in each group; results for 1 dog in the LaOVH group were excluded from further analysis due to free abdominal fluid detected during surgery. Median surgery time was significantly shorter and median total incision length was longer for the OS group (23 minutes; 106 mm), compared to the LaOVH group (37 minutes; 38 mm). No other results differed significantly between groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although fewer patients in the LaOVH group required rescue analgesia, this was not statistically significant. Therefore, our results could not prove previously suggested advantages of LaOVH (eg, less perioperative pain or faster recovery) in dogs with pyometra. Additionally, for the LaOVH group, the median surgical time was approximately 50% longer, an assistant was needed, and specialized equipment was required.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37944246/