Spay and Neuter: When and If ever?

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I forgot to mention that the study includes data for 110 breeds of dogs for which there were more than 1,000 dog years at risk of data per breed. (Each year a dog was insured contributed to one dog-year at risk). The study included 1,959 female Yorkies, which is a very large number. Yorkies were ranked the 61st most at-risk breed for pyometra (which is mid-range for all breeds studied), 24th most at risk for mammary tumors (which is in the top quartile), and 36th most at risk for developing one or the other (high second quartile). IMHO, based on these data, the rate of pyometra for unspayed Yorkies (21%), the rate of mammary tumors (25%), and the rate of one or the other (39%) provide a compelling reason to spay Yorkies before the first heat, UNLESS they are being used as breeding stock, or have a health issue that would make the risk of spaying too great for a particular individual.

Been saying that and I hope that people rethink trying to frighten people on this forum into not spaying their female yorkies.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

Given that insurance companies usually keep quite extensive databases, surely one could have peeled down through the layers, and found out against each breed - when if ever a female was spayed, had she had any litters etc. And why only look at 2 cancers - when you have an abundant wealth of data available to you? I would have loved to seen the rate of hemangiosarcomas and osteosarcomas. As well as ovarian cancers, uterine cancers, bladder, kidney et al.

It may be that there are other such studies out there. I'm sure that pet insurance companies are sitting on PILES of data--they calculate their rates based on the incidence of various illnesses and diseases.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hiya,


I don't believe we have directly communicated before!


Someone else has kindly offered to send me the full study so that I can read it in its entirety, thanks!


Don't worry about offending me! I am not easily offended.


As mentioned before, this is ONE study and as a researcher, I can say that one study would never be used to make a conclusive point in any scientific discipline. The imbalance of information is just ONE limitation of presenting this article and attempting to make generalizations from the information contained within.


I'm a researcher so I'm hardcore when it comes to criticism! I appreciate it, actually. It helps me develop!




Hi Dottie xx


The overall consensus is that it is good to spay and neuter pets due to the shelters which are overpopulated.


Individual advice from vets which I, and others have received, has been that there is no health benefit to intact MALES to be neutered. I have not had any direct advice re: females and I research with lab mice which are never spayed or neutered unless there is something specific under investigation

Unaltered male yorkies are more at risk for perianal hernias which can be a real problem to repair. Also, prostrate cancer...this came from my vet.

[dottiesyrky]

I made an error in the original text, but it is corrected now. 'Benefits from NOT neutering" sorry.

[SirTeddykins]

For the record, I agree that the average pet owner should spay or neuter if they are not capable of responsibly owning an intact pet. Most aren't. I think I have mentioned that already.


However, to generalize advice on the basis of one paper is completely unethical from a science community point of view and misleading people by hiding behind a generalization on these grounds is abhorrent.


I should like to see other studies presented here for a more balanced view. If that is not something which can be achieved, then the whole thread is wasted and we should all go for drinks.


Dottie


My vet said where neutering MAY reduce some cancers and diseases, it is a trade off as it also may result in the INCREASE of some cancers and diseases. He advised that I not consider it unless I had issues with marking because he could not recommend it on health grounds, otherwise.


My breeder, who is a Crufts show judge and international show judge, also advised that I not neuter my dog before three years of age for various reasons. Mostly, because of growth plates not developing appropriately.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I forgot to mention that the study includes data for 110 breeds of dogs for which there were more than 1,000 dog years at risk of data per breed. (Each year a dog was insured contributed to one dog-year at risk). The study included 1,959 female Yorkies, which is a very large number. Yorkies were ranked the 61st most at-risk breed for pyometra (which is mid-range for all breeds studied), 24th most at risk for mammary tumors (which is in the top quartile), and 36th most at risk for developing one or the other (high second quartile). IMHO, based on these data, the rate of pyometra for unspayed Yorkies (21%), the rate of mammary tumors (25%), and the rate of one or the other (39%) provide a compelling reason to spay Yorkies before the first heat, UNLESS they are being used as breeding stock, or have a health issue that would make the risk of spaying too great for a particular individual.

Phil this study only looked at two cancers and looking at this study *only* and only two health concerns one could certainly conclude that for YTs; *females only* spaying is the way to go, also you and I know that for toy breeds as far as the research that has been previously posted here, give or take a 5% margin of difference multiple studies conclude the risk of pyrometra escalates with each unbreed season generally speaking. But the study doesn't as far as I am aware denote increasing risk for either pyro or MT for spaying at any age. The risk of mammary tumours has not been broken down - they did not compare to spayed females for example. But the risk does increase for all breeds of dogs as far as I can tell.


They did not make this at the minimum an all cancer inclusive survey - and I wonder why or why not?


And of course this is one study that needs to be like all others weighed against other bodies of studies.


Thanks again Phil for forwarding the PDF file :-)




As Misty said this is a study that only looked at reproductive issues and those only in females and not males.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hiya,

I don't believe we have directly communicated before!

Someone else has kindly offered to send me the full study so that I can read it in its entirety, thanks!

Don't worry about offending me! I am not easily offended.

As mentioned before, this is ONE study and as a researcher, I can say that one study would never be used to make a conclusive point in any scientific discipline. The imbalance of information is just ONE limitation of presenting this article and attempting to make generalizations from the information contained within.

I'm a researcher so I'm hardcore when it comes to criticism! I appreciate it, actually. It helps me develop!

...

Hi, I'm a plant geneticist, so my expertise is genetics, but I pride myself on reading widely .

What I like about this study is the HUGE population size. One possible source of bias is that these data look only at insured dogs--I'm not sure how that would sway the data one way or the other. About the age of the dogs, the insurance company only insures dogs up to 10 years of age, so older dogs are excluded. If older dogs were included, that would probably bump up the rate of mammary tumors from that reported in this study. I don't know how it would affect the rate of pyometra.

Some of the studies cited by this paper were actually discussed previously in this thread, including a controversial "meta-study" purporting bias in papers that show a correlation of mammary tumors with unspayed dogs. I don't have a stake in this argument, but when I read that meta-study, I found it lacking in substance, to say the least.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

Phil this study only looked at two cancers and looking at this study *only* and only two health concerns one could certainly conclude that for YTs; *females only* spaying is the way to go, also you and I know that for toy breeds as far as the research that has been previously posted here, give or take a 5% margin of difference multiple studies conclude the risk of pyrometra escalates with each unbreed season generally speaking. But the study doesn't as far as I am aware denote increasing risk for either pyro or MT for spaying at any age. The risk of mammary tumours has not been broken down - they did not compare to spayed females for example. But the risk does increase for all breeds of dogs as far as I can tell.


They did not make this at the minimum an all cancer inclusive survey - and I wonder why or why not?


And of course this is one study that needs to be like all others weighed against other bodies of studies.


Thanks again Phil for forwarding the PDF file :-)


As Misty said this is a study that only looked at reproductive issues and those only in females and not males.

Good point on this study ONLY referring to unspayed female dogs. It says nothing about male dogs. I *think* that this study only includes pyometra and mammary tumors because those are the "traditional" risk factors associated with not spaying, and this *is* a study of unspayed females.

I'm guessing that there wasn't an unspayed cohort for comparison because this study was conducted in Sweden, where spaying is uncommon. It would be wonderful to see a study conducted in a country where data for spayed and unspayed females are available. It would also be interesting to see a study based on age or heat cycles, and the effects of spaying before first heat. The insurance data wouldn't be able to track heat cycles, though. To use a well-worn cliche, the study is what it is .

[dottiesyrky]

It may have been hidden somewhere in the above texts, but I wonder what the arguments were for a civilized country like Sweden to leave dogs intact?

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Unaltered male yorkies are more at risk for perianal hernias which can be a real problem to repair. Also, prostrate cancer...this came from my vet.

From the studies posted here on this thread, the highest risk for all males is not testicular cancer or even prostate cancer very very low incidence rates, but Benign Prostate Hypertrophy. Which if it is symptomatic can be cured through Prostate surgery.


And from my vet - no need to worry about Prostate cancer in either of my intact males but BPH - which by the way with my 9yr intact male and my 6 yr old intact male have no evidence of. And as evidenced by examination under sedation when I had dentals done....


It is what all males human or canine can suffer from as they age.


Again the above Swedish study only looked at 2 cancers and not a whole lot else in terms of health concerns. And was a very limited study.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by dottiesyrky

It may have been hidden somewhere in the above texts, but I wonder what the arguments were for a civilized country like Sweden to leave dogs intact?

I don't think it has been discussed. But you should know Sweden is not the only European country to not mandate spay and neuter as an automatic blind decision for the owner. There may be other countries that deem it illegal IDK but there are a whole lot of countries that don't mandate it as a matter of social and political policy.


You may not be aware but in Europe you can not sell a dog on a spay and neuter provision - it is perhaps illegal - or maybe just unenforceable. I am not quite sure which.


But you also should understand that folks who live in European countries for a large part have a different viewpoint for their canine companions. Many Nordic countries are actively involved with their dogs in hiking, skiing, sledding etc. They have a societal viewpoint which is different to North America.


Many countries in Europe do not have pet overpopulation problems and it would be interesting to study why that is so = given no huge pressure to s+n for avoiding pet overpopulation problems

[dottiesyrky]

Thank you
Perhaps an important answer could be in your last paragraph re pet overpopulation?

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Good point on this study ONLY referring to unspayed female dogs. It says nothing about male dogs. I *think* that this study only includes pyometra and mammary tumors because those are the "traditional" risk factors associated with not spaying, and this *is* a study of unspayed females.

I'm guessing that there wasn't an unspayed cohort for comparison because this study was conducted in Sweden, where spaying is uncommon. It would be wonderful to see a study conducted in a country where data for spayed and unspayed females are available. It would also be interesting to see a study based on age or heat cycles, and the effects of spaying before first heat. The insurance data wouldn't be able to track heat cycles, though. To use a well-worn cliche, the study is what it is .

Meant to say: "I'm guessing that there wasn't a spayed cohort for comparison because..."

[dottiesyrky]

Sounds like we need a vet student research project/ PhD thesis including a critical and up to date literature review of the pros and cons of neutering in a significant sample of dogs. This should cover all health aspects rather than selected topics. But probably this exists in some vet school library? A fully comprehensive review may too big a mouthful to chew though.:-)

[lisaly]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Been saying that and I hope that people rethink trying to frighten people on this forum into not spaying their female yorkies.

With all due respect, I don't believe this is happening here. I have read that the timing of spaying (early spay) has been questioned and discussed, but I haven't read anyone advocating against spaying females.

I realize some people will use any excuse if they really don't want to spay their dog, but having science based evidence to make informed decisions about our loved ones in our care is very important to me. I really love and trust my vet, but I also value open minded discussions, and I have learned a great deal from fellow YT members. Although there are limitations tothese studies, but there is also much to be learned from them.