Spay and Neuter: When and If ever?

[gemy]

The association between gonadectomy and various
neoplasms in dogs has been examined in several
studies.15–20 Mammary gland cancer is an important

condition in female dogs, with approximately 20% to

50% of the tumors being histologically malignant.33,34




It is commonly believed that gonadectomized female

dogs have a reduced risk of mammary gland cancer and

that the earlier a dog is gonadectomized, the lower the


risk.28,29,34,35 However, authors of a recent systematic review36



of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the

associations among neutering, age at neutering, and

mammary gland tumors concluded that the evidence

that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia

is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations

on neutering because of limited evidence

and bias in published results.

The present study included 1,360 female dogs, 535

of which were sexually intact. Only 11 dogs had mammary

gland neoplasia; all but one of these were spayed


at > 5 years of age. Given that mammary gland cancer is



seen more commonly in female dogs and 54.3% of the

dogs in the survey were female, this would still have

been equivalent to only 20 dogs in the study having

mammary gland cancer, had the cancer affected both

sexes equally. In comparison, 267 dogs in the study

had diagnoses of mast cell cancer (n = 148), hemangiosarcoma

(73), or lymphoma or lymphosarcoma (46).

There is a breed predilection for development of mammary


gland neoplasia,37 and analysis of results of the



present study suggested that mammary gland cancer is

not a major concern in Vizslas, regardless of gonadectomy

status.

The association between gonadectomy and various

neoplasms in dogs has been examined in several


studies.15–20 Mammary gland cancer is an important



condition in female dogs, with approximately 20% to


50% of the tumors being histologically malignant.33,34



It is commonly believed that gonadectomized female

dogs have a reduced risk of mammary gland cancer and

that the earlier a dog is gonadectomized, the lower the


risk.28,29,34,35 However, authors of a recent systematic review36



of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the

associations among neutering, age at neutering, and

mammary gland tumors concluded that the evidence

that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia

is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations

on neutering because of limited evidence

and bias in published results.

The present study included 1,360 female dogs, 535

of which were sexually intact. Only 11 dogs had mammary

gland neoplasia; all but one of these were spayed


at > 5 years of age. Given that mammary gland cancer is



seen more commonly in female dogs and 54.3% of the

dogs in the survey were female, this would still have

been equivalent to only 20 dogs in the study having

mammary gland cancer, had the cancer affected both

sexes equally. In comparison, 267 dogs in the study

had diagnoses of mast cell cancer (n = 148), hemangiosarcoma

(73), or lymphoma or lymphosarcoma (46).

There is a breed predilection for development of mammary


gland neoplasia,37 and analysis of results of the



present study suggested that mammary gland cancer is

not a major concern in Vizslas, regardless of gonadectomy

status.

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Hea...izslaStudy.pdf

From the Viszla study.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

A retrospective cohort study published in Feb 1 2014 of Journal of the American Veterinary Association.

The link provided is an article by Dr Becker, who with-in the article provides the link to the actual study.

In line with the GR and Rottweiler studies, more confirmation of the health risks to spayed/neutered animals.

I leave it to the readers to look up the study.

Will Spaying/Neutering Increase Your Dog's Risk of Cancer?

That's an interesting study. It's very recent, so there hasn't been time for the veterinary research community to critique this study yet (I've been searching ). I'll try to follow this more closely, and if you find any more updates and any new studies, please post them! (I wish Yorkietalk had a forum section for science.)

[pstinard]

To add to the conversation, here is an excellent article on when (if ever) to spay or neuter, including considerations of diseases that are reduced by spaying, as well as those that are increased by spaying, their incidence, and how to perform a cost/benefit analysis:

Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats

It's probably behind a pay firewall for most people...

Edit: Free copy here!!!: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rootk001/gonadectomy.pdf

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

That's an interesting study. It's very recent, so there hasn't been time for the veterinary research community to critique this study yet (I've been searching ). I'll try to follow this more closely, and if you find any more updates and any new studies, please post them! (I wish Yorkietalk had a forum section for science.)

Sure will Phil. And I too wish we had a forum section for science, but I didn't win that request.

I try to post updates on my thread When to Spay and Neuter if Ever, well at least for that topic.

I just wish we had some toy dog studies. Extrapolating from medium to large breeds, is tempting, but at this point in my mind has no merit.
Heck I can't even find studies on Cancer in Toys. And let us not forget there are breed predilections for many genetic diseases.

Awh well.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

To add to the conversation, here is an excellent article on when (if ever) to spay or neuter, including considerations of diseases that are reduced by spaying, as well as those that are increased by spaying, their incidence, and how to perform a cost/benefit analysis:

Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats

It's probably behind a pay firewall for most people...

Edit: Free copy here!!!: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rootk001/gonadectomy.pdf

Thanks for that. I have just finished reading it. Let me play devils advocate for a moment. Here is the extract I have just copied.
As an example, consider a discussion between a

veterinarian and the owner of an 8-week-old female

Labrador Retriever that is not intended for breeding.

This dog would benefit greatly from OHE before her

first estrus as a means of preventing mammary gland

tumors, which are extremely common and cause substantial

morbidity (Table 3). Because of her breed, detriments

of OHE include an increased predisposition to

CCL injury, hemangiosarcoma, and obesity. However,

there is a low incidence of hemangiosarcoma, and obesity

can be readily controlled with good husbandry,

which leaves CCL injury as the most important possible

detriment. Because the incidence of CCL rupture is

lower than that of mammary gland neoplasia, a veterinarian

may choose to recommend OHE and educate the

owner about maintenance of optimal body condition

and other management techniques that will minimize

potential for CCL injury. An OHE should be performed

before the dog’s first estrus. To minimize the potential

for development of urinary incontinence, the veterinarian

may choose to wait to perform the OHE until after

the dog has reached 3 months of age


So the devils advocate part. As a medium to large breed, depending upon where you put the ruler, this breed is at least in the top 10 breeds for CHD. Their long bones certainly will not close at 6mths old!! And there have been studies that show increased incidence of CCL as well as CHD. And for a working dog which is what a LAB is you effectively put them out of work with a CCL rupture!. Not to mention the cost of the operation, and the lifetime restriction of activities. And I wonder is this what they mean when they "recommend" the vet instruct on how to minimize a potential CCL tear. To not do what they were bred to do? That is to retrieve water fowl from the water. To run through bush. To actively perform many tasks, including by the way being sturdy and healthy enough to be a service dog?

Second Mammary Cancer can be caught early and successfully operated upon. The vet community is responsible for educating owners on how to responsibly care for an intact bitch. That includes at least monthly examination of the nipples. Now the cost of preventative care for Mammary CAncer is a heck of a lot less than a CCL operation and the lameness/stiffness and the inability to do the work they were bred to do!

Obesity for sure has been shown to be a part of neutering in many studies. It is much harder to keep an injured dog fit, (such as one that has a CCL tear), than a healthy able to be active dog. It is not just a matter of food and exercise, although important I am sure I have seen at least one study that excludes food/exercise and yet still obesity is there. And of course there are the anecdoctal stories. And my observations of "active" neutered/spayed Labs playing in the water with mine. Almost to a one they are too heavy. Yet I see them 2-3 times a week with mine, going swimming. And boy those Labs love to swim!!!! And owners talk to each other at the lake.

So in closing, I would have more than a few challenges on these recommendations if I were an owner of a Lab.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

Thanks for that. I have just finished reading it. Let me play devils advocate for a moment. Here is the extract I have just copied.
As an example, consider a discussion between a

veterinarian and the owner of an 8-week-old female

Labrador Retriever that is not intended for breeding.

This dog would benefit greatly from OHE before her

first estrus as a means of preventing mammary gland

tumors, which are extremely common and cause substantial

morbidity (Table 3). Because of her breed, detriments

of OHE include an increased predisposition to

CCL injury, hemangiosarcoma, and obesity. However,

there is a low incidence of hemangiosarcoma, and obesity

can be readily controlled with good husbandry,

which leaves CCL injury as the most important possible

detriment. Because the incidence of CCL rupture is

lower than that of mammary gland neoplasia, a veterinarian

may choose to recommend OHE and educate the

owner about maintenance of optimal body condition

and other management techniques that will minimize

potential for CCL injury. An OHE should be performed

before the dog’s first estrus. To minimize the potential

for development of urinary incontinence, the veterinarian

may choose to wait to perform the OHE until after

the dog has reached 3 months of age


So the devils advocate part. As a medium to large breed, depending upon where you put the ruler, this breed is at least in the top 10 breeds for CHD. Their long bones certainly will not close at 6mths old!! And there have been studies that show increased incidence of CCL as well as CHD. And for a working dog which is what a LAB is you effectively put them out of work with a CCL rupture!. Not to mention the cost of the operation, and the lifetime restriction of activities. And I wonder is this what they mean when they "recommend" the vet instruct on how to minimize a potential CCL tear. To not do what they were bred to do? That is to retrieve water fowl from the water. To run through bush. To actively perform many tasks, including by the way being sturdy and healthy enough to be a service dog?

Second Mammary Cancer can be caught early and successfully operated upon. The vet community is responsible for educating owners on how to responsibly care for an intact bitch. That includes at least monthly examination of the nipples. Now the cost of preventative care for Mammary CAncer is a heck of a lot less than a CCL operation and the lameness/stiffness and the inability to do the work they were bred to do!

Obesity for sure has been shown to be a part of neutering in many studies. It is much harder to keep an injured dog fit, (such as one that has a CCL tear), than a healthy able to be active dog. It is not just a matter of food and exercise, although important I am sure I have seen at least one study that excludes food/exercise and yet still obesity is there. And of course there are the anecdoctal stories. And my observations of "active" neutered/spayed Labs playing in the water with mine. Almost to a one they are too heavy. Yet I see them 2-3 times a week with mine, going swimming. And boy those Labs love to swim!!!! And owners talk to each other at the lake.

So in closing, I would have more than a few challenges on these recommendations if I were an owner of a Lab.

All very good and valid points for a sporting dog. How would you run the costs and benefits for a Yorkie, which is not a sporting dog (in the modern sense), and which has a lower incidence of CHD?

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

All very good and valid points for a sporting dog. How would you run the costs and benefits for a Yorkie, which is not a sporting dog (in the modern sense), and which has a lower incidence of CHD?

Well that question is a conundrum for me. First how many breeders actually post offa results on hip xrays, or for that matter PennHip. Not many.

Anecdotally the community of breeders do know that Hip problems are on the rise. More so FHO than HD. You can see it here on our Sick and Emergency forum.

I have no research to back me up for toy breeds. What I do have is common sense and research on other breeds. I don't like to extrapolate to Yorkies but you asked.

There is no reason "health wise" to neuter a male Yorkie. There just might be ease of ownership issues, but no true overweening health benefits. Again with the dirth of cancer literature on Yorkies, I have no idea if neutering increases their risk of certain types of cancer. I would side with a matured Yorkie being neutered. I am also onside with a responsible owner not neutering a male Yorkie.

For the female Yorkie for a pet owner, definitely spay. There is again NO RESEARCH that can mitigate my response. Also practically most pet owners have no idea when heat happens most especially in a toy breed. And the risks of that boggle my mind. Again I suggest going through at least one heat, and spay around 1yr old. If she has not gone into heat at one, fine and good spay now!
Here-in the risks of pyrometra are from many large breed studies increased, and that can be a deadly situation.

I am interested in research that asks the question; is LP more prevalent in de-sexed Yorkies versus intact? what about LS what about FHO or CHD? And again what is the incidence of pyrometra in spayed versus unsprayed females?

[megansmomma]

I don't care about any research that claims that unaltered animals are healthier. The fact that 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 11 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year. That alone ends any debate for me regarding not altering ALL pets. Often these animals are the offspring of cherished family pets. Spay/neuter is a proven way to reduce pet overpopulation, ensuring that every pet has a family to love them.

People are just not responsible when it comes to pet ownership and doing basic preventative care such as vaccines, monthly heartworm preventions and a yearly visit to the vet. What makes anyone think that keeping unaltered animals is a wise decision is beyond me.

I would much rather see an altered pet be loved and have a possibility of some type of health issue down the road than a shelter full of cast off unwanted animals awaiting their death sentence.

Sure if you are a responsible breeder and take your responsibility seriously then I don't see a problem with not altering. But we all know "breeders" that have oops matings. People that come to YT for medical advice instead of vetting properly or looking for reason not to alter their animals will take this information and run with it for their own justification.

I firmly believe that all pets should be alter and not contribute to the overpopulation of animals in this country.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

I don't care about any research that claims that unaltered animals are healthier. The fact that 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 11 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year. That alone ends any debate for me regarding not altering ALL pets. Often these animals are the offspring of cherished family pets. Spay/neuter is a proven way to reduce pet overpopulation, ensuring that every pet has a family to love them.

People are just not responsible when it comes to pet ownership and doing basic preventative care such as vaccines, monthly heartworm preventions and a yearly visit to the vet. What makes anyone think that keeping unaltered animals is a wise decision is beyond me.

I would much rather see an altered pet be loved and have a possibility of some type of health issue down the road than a shelter full of cast off unwanted animals awaiting their death sentence.

Sure if you are a responsible breeder and take your responsibility seriously then I don't see a problem with not altering. But we all know "breeders" that have oops matings. People that come to YT for medical advice instead of vetting properly or looking for reason not to alter their animals will take this information and run with it for their own justification.

I firmly believe that all pets should be alter and not contribute to the overpopulation of animals in this country.

I would much rather see healthy pets! And the very real cost of health issues and the huge emotional toll on the future owners not be BORNE by both the dog and the owner. Please let me know how you would feel when your dog was neutered at 6wks old and 1.2 yrs down the road suffers from crippling CHD in both hips? If we had only waited!

The answer is always making an "informed decision", and I will always advocate for the health of dogs. Period non stop.

If certain folks want to "take| this information and run with it, well so be it! I will never advocate irresponsibly a position that puts at risk the health of a dog.

This is what this forum is for. Education. Offering different points of view.

I abhor breedings that don't even come close to meeting the breed standard. I abhor folks who mindlessly adopt a puppy, only to somehow not understand that this is a puppy, and then 2 months later they surrender it.

The answer in my mind is not to "suppress" information, to "suppress" studies on the health risks or benefits; but to educate. To educate in all facets of responsible dog ownership. And that includes when to spay or neuter. It includes how to train a good citizen dog.

We should not hide our heads in the sand. Despite the heart breaking stats on shelter dogs. Health of the dog is foremost in my mind.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by gemy

I would much rather see healthy pets! And the very real cost of health issues and the huge emotional toll on the future owners not be BORNE by both the dog and the owner. Please let me know how you would feel when your dog was neutered at 6wks old and 1.2 yrs down the road suffers from crippling CHD in both hips? If we had only waited!

The answer is always making an "informed decision", and I will always advocate for the health of dogs. Period non stop.

If certain folks want to "take| this information and run with it, well so be it! I will never advocate irresponsibly a position that puts at risk the health of a dog.

This is what this forum is for. Education. Offering different points of view.

I abhor breedings that don't even come close to meeting the breed standard. I abhor folks who mindlessly adopt a puppy, only to somehow not understand that this is a puppy, and then 2 months later they surrender it.

The answer in my mind is not to "suppress" information, to "suppress" studies on the health risks or benefits; but to educate. To educate in all facets of responsible dog ownership. And that includes when to spay or neuter. It includes how to train a good citizen dog.

We should not hide our heads in the sand. Despite the heart breaking stats on shelter dogs. Health of the dog is foremost in my mind.

You say surrender like as if puppies are not euthanized daily all over this country. What about that person that allowed their dog to breed, making that puppy and then it's dumped. There's no accountability in allowing your animal to breed. It makes me sick at how irresponsible people are with their animals. I have to wonder if we are even living in the same reality. You speak of hips, knees, testing, breeding while others just let their animals roam free to have litter after litter of puppies.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by gemy

I would much rather see healthy pets! And the very real cost of health issues and the huge emotional toll on the future owners not be BORNE by both the dog and the owner. Please let me know how you would feel when your dog was neutered at 6wks old and 1.2 yrs down the road suffers from crippling CHD in both hips? If we had only waited!

The answer is always making an "informed decision", and I will always advocate for the health of dogs. Period non stop.

If certain folks want to "take| this information and run with it, well so be it! I will never advocate irresponsibly a position that puts at risk the health of a dog.

This is what this forum is for. Education. Offering different points of view.

I abhor breedings that don't even come close to meeting the breed standard. I abhor folks who mindlessly adopt a puppy, only to somehow not understand that this is a puppy, and then 2 months later they surrender it.

The answer in my mind is not to "suppress" information, to "suppress" studies on the health risks or benefits; but to educate. To educate in all facets of responsible dog ownership. And that includes when to spay or neuter. It includes how to train a good citizen dog.

We should not hide our heads in the sand. Despite the heart breaking stats on shelter dogs. Health of the dog is foremost in my mind.

Not to be glib, but just how healthy are all the euthanized dogs?

[Lovetodream88]

Another thing that bothers me is how about the health of the female who is pregnant and going to have puppies because they thought there dog would be healthier not spayed? What if that dog is 3 pounds? Does that matter? Does dogs reproducing that have horrible genetic illnesses and are very unhealthy and have pups who have them and suffer until they die which could be years and years in pain? Do these dogs health not matter? What about the irresponsible owners who see this and use this as reason not to spay there dog and it keeps getting pregnant? Sure didn't help advocate for that dog just live and happy life as a pet. Being pregnant and whelping is not fun its not comfortable and putting a dog through that for no reason is messed up and wrong. My research shows getting your dogs altered is healthier then not. No I didn't think it should be done before 6 months but I still think it should be done before females first heat. The biggest thing that needs to be in bold is these studies are on big dogs and small dogs are VERY different then big dogs so much so I think it voids most of the studies. I care about dog is shelters and the million put to sleep every year but my dogs health comes first and I feel altering my dog gives them the best chance at the healthiest and happiest life.

[Starina]

Originally Posted by gemy

The answer is always making an "informed decision", and I will always advocate for the health of dogs. Period non stop.

If certain folks want to "take| this information and run with it, well so be it! I will never advocate irresponsibly a position that puts at risk the health of a dog.

This is what this forum is for. Education. Offering different points of view.

The answer in my mind is not to "suppress" information, to "suppress" studies on the health risks or benefits; but to educate. To educate in all facets of responsible dog ownership.

This. Access to information. The ability to offer and discuss differing points of view without the conversation degenrating into "my-way-is-the-right-way' camps and snarky comments.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Not to be glib, but just how healthy are all the euthanized dogs?

That's exactly what I mean. MILLIONS of dogs are killed each year because of their irresponsible owners.

Originally Posted by Starina

This. Access to information. The ability to offer and discuss differing points of view without the conversation degenrating into "my-way-is-the-right-way' camps and snarky comments.

I don't see any snarky comments going on here. If you think offering the opinion that people are irresponsible and millions are animals are killed every year is snarky I don't know what to even say to that.

Gemy, don't take this wrong but as much as you advocate for this topic we all know how you had a Heartworm positive dog. The story is very sad but in the end it was owner failure by not properly giving the preventative.

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/our...s-prayers.html

Which brings me to the point of why EVERY pet owner should spay and neuter. When it becomes a matter of life and death it is then too late. Like I said in my first post, owners are not always responsible and the story of Zoey (I consider you very responsible) is just case in point.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by Starina

This. Access to information. The ability to offer and discuss differing points of view without the conversation degenrating into "my-way-is-the-right-way' camps and snarky comments.

I don't care if people think it is snarky to say that if you don't spay/neuter your pet then you are an irresponsible owner. The statistics of shelters like those in San Bernadino CA where nearly 10,000 beautiful young animals are euthanized monthly speak louder than a small segment of people who try to peddle an anti-spay/neuter agenda based on speculation and not FACTS. If the health of the dogs is of foremost importance, then do your part and do the bare minimum vetting that's expected of responsible pet owners - which includes altering your pet.