More spay neuter information.....

Shalva · 01-03-2008, 01:42 PM

Citation
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
December 1, 2007, Vol. 231, No. 11, Pages 1665-1675
doi: 10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

I just copied the chart......
but the full citation is above so you can pull the actual article... but it hd this nifty chart....

this is Table 2 from the article

animalcraker · 01-03-2008, 03:50 PM

Seeing as your a big research guru, could you please explain what the chart means and what sort of conclusions they came to in the study. To me it just looks like a bunch of yes and no's. And I highly doubt most of us are going to spend our time searching for the article since a link was not given, let alone read the article if we actually find it.

Shalva · 01-03-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by animalcraker

Seeing as your a big research guru, could you please explain what the chart means and what sort of conclusions they came to in the study. To me it just looks like a bunch of yes and no's. And I highly doubt most of us are going to spend our time searching for the article since a link was not given, let alone read the article if we actually find it.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf...ma.231.11.1665

in the chart above.....
the benefits of neutering are listed first ......

the detrimental aspects of neutering are listed secondarilly

the first column indicates whether if that dog were to get that thing whatever it is ..... whether there is a high incidence of death..... and whether or not it is a disease that is breed specific..... so in the case of a neuter (gonadectomy ) in dogs.....

neutering prevents testicular neoplasms (cancerous growths) but these are usually not tumours that result in death and they are not generally breed specific.....

neutering prevents prostatitis..... but this is not usually deadly and is not breed specific....

(see how I am reading the chart)

then the detriments of neutering are listed next so things that are bad about neutering your dog....

so forget about surgical complications.... because of course any surgery has that potential..... but go down to
the next
prostatic neoplasms (prostate cancer) is increased in neutered dogs.... has a high chance of death and is not breed specific.....

osteosarcoma (bone cancer) is increased in neutered dogs.... has a high chance of death if they get it and is breed specific..... so some are more prone than others to get it

so that is how to read the chart.....

there is a chart referring to ovio-hysterectomy (spaying) in the actual article that I did not put up but basically it says the same thing

mammary tumours go down.....
pyometra goes down.....

BUT
there are other very significant health issues.....
osteosarcomas
hemangiosarcomas
diabetes
aggression
incontence that all increase with spaying

the article goes on to state that it is becoming difficult for vets to reconcile this data with how to advise their clients considering the number of animals that are in shelters and euthanized due to accidental and unwanted litters..... YET spaying and neutering has significant health risks and may not be the best thing for the individual dog....

so the article is really addressing that conflict....

doing what one believes is best for birth control purposes and reducing the number of dogs in shelters

AND at the same time

Reconciling what is best for the individual dogs health and that may not be spaying and neutering.....

Personally I do recommend and require that my puppy people all spay and neuter (although I don't worry about neutering as much) BUT I ask them to wait until after the dog reaches sexual maturity.....

I don't sleep nights until everyone is spayed/neutered but I have to do what is best for my puppy..... and I screen families really well.....

but anyway that is the gist of the article.... an interesting read.
s

Inga · 01-03-2008, 06:22 PM

Unfortunately, not spaying and neutering a dog if an individual is not responsible has a huge mortality rate. Not for the individual dog maybe but for all of the unwanted puppies that they produce and end up in shelters. I am glad that you do insist that your puppies are fixed. I do believe vets are pushing to have them done far too early. Many of them are doing them at 8 weeks old. That hardly seems fair, but I know it is because the chances of the owner coming back when the dog is an adult is not as good and there could be several puppies born by then. Still it seems wrong to fix an 8 week old in my opinion. Necessary evil I guess.

Shalva · 01-03-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inga

Unfortunately, not spaying and neutering a dog if an individual is not responsible has a huge mortality rate. Not for the individual dog maybe but for all of the unwanted puppies that they produce and end up in shelters. I am glad that you do insist that your puppies are fixed. I do believe vets are pushing to have them done far too early. Many of them are doing them at 8 weeks old. That hardly seems fair, but I know it is because the chances of the owner coming back when the dog is an adult is not as good and there could be several puppies born by then. Still it seems wrong to fix an 8 week old in my opinion. Necessary evil I guess.

I do think that is what this article is trying to address ......

the thing is that what may be an excellent thing for people who are not responsible with regards to birth control.... is not necessarily the best for the dog as a multitude of studies have shown.

I remember when I started researching all of this .... when I got Meghan I was really conflicted about the idea that I was showing her and here I was risking her health because of this game that I wanted to play..... I was up at night worried about this.... and thats when I began researching and finding out that spaying and neutering was not the panacea that everyone says it is....

There is so much information out there that is just incorrect at best and an outright untruth at worst..... I totally believe in spaying and neutering.... I have a really hard time with people saying that it will solve problems that it doesn't solve and people saying that it doesn't cause other health problems which it clearly does..... and this is just another article that is saying what breeders and others have known for a long time.....

and yes there is a conflict.....
and I don't think anyone would deny that there is a conflict between the huge numbers in shelters that are dying because people can't be responsible..... and what is best for the dog ... that individual dog.....

and all it takes is a few weeks here to realize how many people cant be responsible or are breeding for the wrong reasons.

its a hard call......

even I am conflicted.....

does opening my mouth about the truths of spay and neuter cause people who are on the fence to decide not to s/n and what are the ramifications of that.....

or do I sit back knowing that the information is incorrect and that spaying and neutering to early (before maturity) can harm the individual dog and keep my mouth shut about that.....

it is a quandary
s

lovemygreys · 01-03-2008, 07:36 PM

I think the problem with any study is that people forget that correlation is not causation. If there is a .2% increase (or occurance) in osteo in neutered males, that doesn't necessarily mean that the neutering had anything to do with that increase (occurance). There may be all sorts of environmental factors or genetic factors at play, not to mention the age at neutering that may play a role (perhaps that's taken into account in the full study...which I'm too lazy to read).

From that graph alone, the *appearance* is that neutering is relevant in the occurance of certain conditions, but it may in fact be irrelevant...and the authors of the study just don't know what the actual cause for the seeming increase is (in comparison to unaltered dogs). Off hand the difference could just be that owners of pets who are altered are MORE likely to seek long term vet care...therefore having conditions diagnosed...and therefore leading to the appearance in an increase in that condition. Or maybe owners of altered pets are more likely to seek preventative vet care which leads dogs to live longer lives and ultimately, they just get a disease like osteo that will kill them (we all gotta die of something. A 13 year old altered dog dying of osteo is a whole lot different than a 4 year old dog dying from osteo). It could be, simply, that unaltered dogs are underrepresented b/c they are less likely to receive vet care. Not to mention that at least two of the "conditions" cited may be interconnected themselves completley outside of whether or not a dog is altered. Obesity can be a contributing factor in CCL ruptures....so if a dog's CCL ruptures, is it because he's neutered or because he's obese? Again, correlation is not causation.

And the numbers in that graph are so incredibly small...fractions of a percent. Is there a graph that shows the incidence rate of those same conditions in unaltered dogs?

I seriously doubt any vet is actually questioning whether or not recommending dogs and cats be altered is good or bad advice. When you are talking fractions of a percent difference in the occurence of conditions that may or may not even be related to the dog being altered....Alter alter alter those pets.

Shalva · 01-03-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

I think the problem with any study is that people forget that correlation is not causation. If there is a .2% increase (or occurance) in osteo in neutered males, that doesn't necessarily mean that the neutering had anything to do with that increase (occurance). There may be all sorts of environmental factors or genetic factors at play, not to mention the age at neutering that may play a role (perhaps that's taken into account in the full study...which I'm too lazy to read).

From that graph alone, the *appearance* is that neutering is relevant in the occurance of certain conditions, but it may in fact be irrelevant...and the authors of the study just don't know what the actual cause for the seeming increase is (in comparison to unaltered dogs). Off hand the difference could just be that owners of pets who are altered are MORE likely to seek long term vet care...therefore having conditions diagnosed...and therefore leading to the appearance in an increase in that condition. Or maybe owners of altered pets are more likely to seek preventative vet care which leads dogs to live longer lives and ultimately, they just get a disease like osteo that will kill them (we all gotta die of something. A 13 year old altered dog dying of osteo is a whole lot different than a 4 year old dog dying from osteo). It could be, simply, that unaltered dogs are underrepresented b/c they are less likely to receive vet care. Not to mention that at least two of the "conditions" cited may be interconnected themselves completley outside of whether or not a dog is altered. Obesity can be a contributing factor in CCL ruptures....so if a dog's CCL ruptures, is it because he's neutered or because he's obese? Again, correlation is not causation.

And the numbers in that graph are so incredibly small...fractions of a percent. Is there a graph that shows the incidence rate of those same conditions in unaltered dogs?

I seriously doubt any vet is actually questioning whether or not recommending dogs and cats be altered is good or bad advice. When you are talking fractions of a percent difference in the occurence of conditions that may or may not even be related to the dog being altered....Alter alter alter those pets.

I posted the actual link to the article..... so you can look in there for other data.....

my point is not one way or the other, I do insist on spaying and neutering my puppies.....
its just all about information....
the actual article is an interesting read though and it reiterates what was found in beranak et al and some of the other empirical studies.....

I think it also depends on whether you have a breed that has a predisposition to some of these other cancers.....

people can make their own decisions about what they want to do. I know what my decisions have been based on the breeds I have and the studies I have read....

Just passing along the information and with that people can make their own decisions about what they want to do.
s

Mdawn · 01-03-2008, 10:56 PM

Thanks Shalva

I'll be checking it out. Eddie is getting neuter in less than 2 weeks (he's around 14 months) but I'm still interested in reading up on it more.

My vet won't neuter before 9 months so I didn't think that it would hurt to just wait until he was over a year old since that was the case. But its an added responsibility that I decided to take on making sure that he didn't sire any pups; and he hasn't. However, I'll honestly be glad when its over.

It is a huge issue because I do see how the argument that if people wait too long some may not s/n at all and that I don't think that is right either. I think that it comes down to responsibility and what intention the person has for waiting. Are they not doing it out of laziness and being careless with their pet in regards to chances of unwanted litters? Or are they doing it because they honestly believe its the best decision for their pet, health wise and being responsible for that decision to wait; but will still get it done? It's a hard call to make really. Depending on the type of owner, it maybe best to get it done when the dog is younger...even though it may not be the best thing for that individual dog. I chose to wait but I knew that I'd be responsible with it. Other people that I know...I probably wouldn't make the same recommendation...they wouldn't be responsible enough to handle it.

Inga · 01-03-2008, 11:27 PM

At this point my plan is to allow Carsten to develop. I will threaten him with neutering every time he misbehaves. LOL Actually, the breeder encourages waiting at least until they are a year. She prefers 2. As I am constantly taking different dogs into the house it will just depend on how he is. Male Rotties can be turds. Not all of them. Many of my males were neutered young since they were rescues. A few of them were private rescues and I chose to wait until they were adults. It is just a pain having to constantly be on the alert. Especially when people bring their females in heat to training etc...

Mdawn · 01-03-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inga

It is just a pain having to constantly be on the alert.

Yep, that about sums it up...I used to just let my dogs (Montana and Dan) out and have them off leash in my yard...which you know it is enormous...I never really had to worry about it. With Eddie not being fixed right now, I have to know where he is every single second. He can't be left outside without supervision or anything. Which is kind of sad for him because he loves to just go out and lay in the yard, chewing on sticks or whatever. But I can't take the chance that he'll smell a female in heat and take off down the road...so he lives a more confined life now than I'd like for him. Hopefully, since he's about to be neutered that will change for him. I really like the idea of my dogs being able to come and go outside as they wish and not dependent on when I feel like taking them out. I'm convinced that lends for them to live a more healthy, stress-free life...every though I don't have any evidence to back that up. It's just my personal opinion. This summer both dogs will be neutered and hopefully, depending on their behavior, be able to come and go outside more on their whims, not mine.

vabird · 01-04-2008, 09:32 AM

It would be difficult to make any real decisions about the spay/neuter controversy based on the chart shown above and Shalva's interpretations without reading the article and talking to your vet.

For instance, Shalva stated that osteosarcoma is not breed specific whereas the table and article lists that it is. When a disease is breed specific it is hard to tell whether a disease is caused by something such as neutering or is genetic and more prevalent in the population studied. This was admitted by the author.

Shalva also glossed over the prevalence and morbidity of mammary tumors and pyometras. Mammary tumors are the most common tumors in dogs, 50% are malignant, and not spaying is a major risk factor. Spaying at any age can decrease the likelihood that a dog will get them but the risk of getting them increases with the age of the dog at the time of spay. The risk of pyometras should also not be taken lightly. Many might think that if a pyo occurs in their dog then they will just spay it then and all will be well. Pyometras can be difficult to detect and can quickly make the dog toxic and very sick.

I also wonder why perianal adenomas and perineal hernias are not mentioned. While neither condition has a high mortality rate, both can be very painful and difficult to treat and both can be prevented by neutering male dogs.

Also keep in mind that the numbers under incidence are not the increase in neutered dogs, the numbers are the incidence in ALL dogs. So 1.8% is the incidence of CCL rupture in ALL dogs.

And, yes, ignore the complications number. It includes all complications such as GI upset post surgery and incision inflammation.

Shalva · 01-04-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vabird

It would be difficult to make any real decisions about the spay/neuter controversy based on the chart shown above and Shalva's interpretations without reading the article and talking to your vet.

For instance, Shalva stated that osteosarcoma is not breed specific whereas the table and article lists that it is. When a disease is breed specific it is hard to tell whether a disease is caused by something such as neutering or is genetic and more prevalent in the population studied. This was admitted by the author.

Shalva also glossed over the prevalence and morbidity of mammary tumors and pyometras. Mammary tumors are the most common tumors in dogs, 50% are malignant, and not spaying is a major risk factor. Spaying at any age can decrease the likelihood that a dog will get them but the risk of getting them increases with the age of the dog at the time of spay. The risk of pyometras should also not be taken lightly. Many might think that if a pyo occurs in their dog then they will just spay it then and all will be well. Pyometras can be difficult to detect and can quickly make the dog toxic and very sick.

I also wonder why perianal adenomas and perineal hernias are not mentioned. While neither condition has a high mortality rate, both can be very painful and difficult to treat and both can be prevented by neutering male dogs.

Also keep in mind that the numbers under incidence are not the increase in neutered dogs, the numbers are the incidence in ALL dogs. So 1.8% is the incidence of CCL rupture in ALL dogs.

And, yes, ignore the complications number. It includes all complications such as GI upset post surgery and incision inflammation.

Shalva also posted the link to the original article.

I merely interpreted what the chart said...... I don't have to agree with it especially considering we all know that some breeds are more prone to osteosarcoma than others.... I merely interpreted the chart AND THEN posted a link to the original article.

Shalva just posts the information
it is up to you to read it and make your own decision.....

I have had a bitch with pyometra and she survived.... many don't so I am big on spaying..... just not at 8 weeks and not at 6 mos..... I just ask my puppy people to wait after one heat cycle..... no more than that......

it is up to people to do their homework and read the actual data.... and then make decisions.....
I have more citations if you are interested in actually pulling the articles (which I have) and reading the studies for yourself.....

there is alot of misinformation regarding this procedure.....

if organizations could claim it would end global warming I am sure that they would....

my only motive is to provide information......

studies are just studies
it is up to you to read them and determine their validity (and every study has faults)

this study seems to me to be a meta-analysis (analysis of analysis') and discusses some of the conflicts that vets are experiencing.....

thats it..... if you are upset with the way the article is written take it up with the authors and the AVMA.....if you don't like the statistics.... take it up with the authors and the AVMA peer review panel...... they published it......

don't shoot the messenger.... its just a study that I thought some would be interested in. I was asked to interpret the chart..... and I did.....
that is all I did..... and then I was asked to summarize the article.... and I did..... in a very brief abstract like format.....

I know what my opinion is on this issue..... its up to others to have the empirical data to make their own decisions......

s
s

vabird · 01-04-2008, 11:53 AM

And I interpreted it differently.

I think people should also realize that if they make the decision to hold off on spaying their deep-chested lab or rottie until it is 3 years old, the vet can and should charge $300-600 if not more. It will be a more complicated and longer surgery in a large dog that is no longer young.

Shalva · 01-04-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vabird

For instance, Shalva stated that osteosarcoma is not breed specific whereas the table and article lists that it is. When a disease is breed specific it is hard to tell whether a disease is caused by something such as neutering or is genetic and more prevalent in the population studied. This was admitted by the author.

this part I mis-typed as I was flipping back and forth between scrolling down to type and scrolling up to read the chart.... so you are correct it is breed related..... I have corrected my typing that .....

the other parts you have to take up wtih the author....

Annamarie · 01-04-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

If a female dog is spayed before her first heat cycle, her risk of developing breast cancer is only 0.05%. If she is spayed after having only one heat cycle, her risk of breast cancer jumps to 8%. If she is spayed after her second heat cycle, that risk becomes 26%... that's more than 1 in 4! Spaying a dog after her third heat cycle may reduce the risk of mammary carcinoma (breast cancer) but not appreciably. The take-home message: intact female dogs are 50 times more likely to get breast cancer than a dog spayed prior to her first heat cycle. Ogilvie, Moore. Managing the Veterinary Cancer Patient: a practice manual. 1995

posting the above quote.

Shalva · 01-04-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annamarie

posting the above quote.

you clearly are only capable of reading what you want......
would you like me to post some quotes from this article..... not published in 1995 but published in 2007.......
I would be happy to do so for you........

lets see
where to start......

perhaps hemangiosarcoma..... or osteosarcoma.......

the fact is that there is no question that mammary tumours increase in a dog that is not spayed actually they have 7X the risk not 1 in 4 but ok whatever.....
not the point....

but there are also some very serious OTHER cancers that are increased by spaying and neutering......splenic hemangiosarcoma increases 2.2x in spayed females and cardiac hemangiosarcoma increases 5X.... aggressive prostate cancers increase 2.4-4.3 times in neutered dogs......
and I have not even touched upon endocrine disorders, incontinence..... hip dysplasia in dogs s/n prior to five months but that is not conclusive.....

there are other cancers out there
and they are just as deadly and scary......

but it doesn't matter......
this is just an article..... and people need to take all of this information and make a decision that is best for them and their dogs based on facts.

people have to right to all the information REGARDLESS of what you think. if you want to argue the article take it up with the authors, the AVMA and the peer review panel who said these facts were correct...... I know what my decisions have been for my puppies...... then you can take all the information you want and make your own decisions for your puppies.....

and everyone else has one more bit of information when they are making up their minds about what they wish to do with their own dogs.

s

Curbside Prophet · 01-04-2008, 07:03 PM

If you two are going to continue and pick on each other, I'm going to refer to myself in the third person also. Outcomes are not usually democratic when I do so, however.