Dataset Information

A laparoscopic approach for removal of ovarian remnant tissue in 32 dogs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgical treatment of ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS) in dogs usually necessitates large celiotomies and considerable manipulation of organs because of the relatively deep position of ovarian remnant tissue, large patient size, and often encountered adhesions. In women, laparoscopic treatment of ORS is successful and has significant advantages over laparotomy. Since laparoscopic ovariectomy has significant advantages over open ovariectomy in dogs, including reduced surgical stress and postoperative pain and shorter convalescence period, the rationale for a laparoscopic approach of canine ORS is evident. Feasibility and efficacy of a laparoscopic approach for treatment of ORS in dogs was prospectively evaluated using a standardized protocol for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Treatment success was evaluated by histology of removed tissues, postoperative hormone testing, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Results

Thirty-two client-owned predominantly medium and large breed dogs diagnosed with ORS underwent abdominal ultrasound for ovarian remnant localization prior to laparoscopic surgery for removal of ovarian remnants. Tissue dissection and excision was performed using a vessel sealing forceps. Laparoscopy subjectively enabled detailed visibility and facilitated detection and removal of suspected ovarian tissue in all cases. Histology confirmed ovarian origin of removed tissue in all dogs. Additionally, a GnRH stimulation test was performed in fourteen dogs after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, which verified absence of residual functional ovarian remnant tissue in all dogs. Median surgery duration was 97.5 min and mean total convalescence duration, subjectively scored by owners, was 1.5 ± 0.7 days. No major complications occurred. Adhesions were observed in 79% of the dogs, complicated the surgical approach, and significantly affected surgery duration (85 versus 109 min; p = 0.03). Minor hemorrhage occurred in 12% and significantly increased surgery duration (95.5 versus 128 min; p = 0.02). Trendelenburg position and lateral tilting of the patient were essential for proper access to ovarian remnants. GnRH stimulation test results and/or absence of clinical signs indicative of ORS after a median follow-up period of 22.5 months confirmed treatment efficacy in all dogs.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for ORS in dogs is effective with minimal complications and short convalescence and can successfully replace the conventional, more invasive open surgical procedure.

SUBMITTER: van Nimwegen SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6223097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To conduct a nationwide study of associations between removal of all ovarian tissue versus conservation of at least one ovary at the time of hysterectomy and important health outcomes (ischaemic heart disease, cancer, and all cause mortality).Study design and setting Retrospective analysis of the English Hospital Episode Statistics database linked to national registers of deprivation indices and of deaths.Participants 113 679 patients aged 35-45 who had had a hysterectomy for benign conditions between April 2004 and March 2014.Exposures Bilateral ovarian removal versus no removal or unilateral ovarian removal (ovarian conservation).Main outcome measures Hospital admissions for ischaemic heart disease, cancer, or attempted suicide; deaths, overall and from heart disease, cancer, or suicide. Statistical adjustments were made using Cox regression and propensity score matching for potential confounders.Results A third of patients had bilateral ovarian removal. Patients in the ovarian conservation group were less likely to be admitted for ischaemic heart disease after hysterectomy than were those in the bilateral removal group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.93; P=0.001). They were also less likely to have a cancer related post-hysterectomy admission (adjusted hazard ratio 0.83, 0.78 to 0.89; P<0.001). A significant difference in all cause mortality was also seen: 0.60% (456/76 581) of patients with ovarian conservation compared with 1.01% (376/37 098) of patients with bilateral removal. Again, this difference in favour of ovarian conservation was significant (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 0.55 to 0.73; P<0.001). Fewer deaths related specifically to heart disease (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 0.28 to 0.90; P=0.02) and to cancer (0.54, 0.45 to 0.65; P<0.001) occurred in the ovarian conservation group than in the bilateral removal group. No significant difference between groups was found relating to suicide (attempted or completed). The results after propensity score matching were essentially unchanged.Conclusion Patients who had ovarian conservation had a significantly lower hazard of all cause mortality compared with those who had bilateral ovarian removal and also had lower death rates from ischaemic heart disease and cancer. Consistent with this observation, admissions to hospital for both ischaemic heart disease and cancer were also lower in the ovarian conservation group than in the bilateral removal group. Although removal of both ovaries protects against subsequent development of ovarian cancer, premenopausal women should be advised that this benefit comes at the cost of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and of other (more prevalent) cancers and higher overall mortality.