Would you pay double for this?
 

Ok so I recently learned of a new spay technique they are offering which uses laproscopy which uses a camera and tiny instruments.
For this poll lets say a spay cost $300 and a laproscopic spay costs $600, double the cost. Heres some facts:
Traditional Spay:
•2” – 4” Incision
•Pain & Bruising from Blindly
Tearing Ovarian Ligament
•Post-Operative Pain
•Open Surgical Procedure

Laproscopic Spay:
•Two Tiny Holes
•Reduced Pain due to precise
surgical cuts
•Up to 65% Less Post-Operative Pain
•Minimally Invasive Technique
which reduces chance of infection

If my vet felt there was a better, safer alternative to any surgery, with a shorter healing time and less impact on my dog- I would certainly pay more for it.

Yes, I would pay the extra to have a lap spay.

I myself have had traditional and laproscopic surgery. A 5-6 week recovery for me with traditional and 2 weeks tops on the laproscopic. No decision to make, I would do the laproscopic on my babies for sure.

I was going to say the same thing. They are day & night difference on a human & I'm sure it's similar, if not the same on a dog.

I would pay it! But would definitely make sure it was safe!

Yes, I would even if it meant eating ramen noodles for a month and start saving early LOL

I had no idea this was being offered and will 'shop' around in my area and see if anyone offers it. What a great idea.

Yes!! with a shorter healing time and less pain on my dog, I would happily pay more for it.

I answered maybe because I would want to know the risks. If they were equal to or less than the risks of the traditional surgery, I would absolutely pay double to spare Tallulah some pain.

Yeah I would if I had the funds for it and it was safe and the vet was very experienced with that particular procedure.

I've searched a few vets that do it and their websites say they do it on dogs that are 25lbs and over, so does that mean it isn't safe enough for the dogs under 25lbs? There has to be a reason for it?

I agree with you here. If my Vet thought it was easier on my babies and safer, I would. But what's with the over 25lbs? humm, makes you wonder.
Then none of mine would fit that description.

I hadnt come across anything saying their was a weight limit, I called and asked the vet how much it was, I mentioned I had a yorkie and she didint say anything about it. I will double check tomorrow.

They use different size instruments according to size. It's the same with humans, the larger the patient the larger the instruments. The smaller the patient the smaller the instruments. The vet might not have trocars small enough. It's not a safety issue so much as using the proper size instruments during surgery.

I am fortunate to live in Pittsburgh. We have a new facility that does speciality and emergency care. I see on their website that they do offer the minimal invasive procedure. I will pay twice the money to have my babies be spaired the additional pain and down time. Espcially my tiny girl, Hallie. She is just 3.7 pounds at 4 months. I don't expect her to get much bigger. I'm going to call and get more information. Why risk infection and more problems?

I am not sure what I would do because I can't honestly say I have experienced any complications with the traditional spay. Matilda came through with flying colors and didn't need pain medication; acted great, etc.

I also take mine to the Animal Welfare to be spayed and not my regular Vet, as it is much less expensive. I feel that these Vets at the Animal Welfare do thousands of spays a year, so I feel they are more than qualified and I have been totally pleased.

On the other hand, when I had my cryptorchid male neutered I spent well over $700 because I knew it was a more difficult procedure and wanted my regular vet to do it as he seemed more qualified in this circumstance.

Don't count on that...she is 3.7 lbs at 4 mos old...She has a lot of growing left to do before she is even a year old...and than in my experience...between the first and second year they fill out putting on a little more weight...My Bailey RIP was 4.5 lbs at a year old by the time she was 2 she was 5.5 lbs...Bella was almost 4 lbs at 4 mos old, at 1 year she was 8.6 lbs...she is now almost 3 and at 9.9 lbs...LOL.

Wow, I am finding it hard to answer this. I don't honestly know. I have been through many many spays without any complications and I see today's procedures as relatively safe. Maybe there are less risks with the laproscopy, but there are risks and freak things that can happen with any surgery. There are no guarantees ever. I do wonder though if this procedure will become the norm and prices will eventually come down.

Most definitely if there was a qualified vet in my area.

I was not aware that they offered that. Our Papillon had the traditional but handled it great. She is right around 6.5 lbs.

If I ever own a female, Yes.

No. If it was $100 for traditional and $200 for lap., then probably. A $300 difference is fair, but IMO may not be justifiable. In any event, her doctor would make the decision no matter what the cost.

When E's vet was doing lap. spays a few years ago, the instruments for small dogs weren't really available. So the technology has changed or the right instruments were in some way not easy to get for this particular vet's office.

I was talking to her about this. The less damage, less pain, etc. is all true; however, there could be a downside. If the surgeon is not very experienced, they can take a very long time to do the surgery and work the equipment. It could take several times longer than a traditional spay if the doctor is inexperienced. So you would need to make very sure that it can be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, one of the most major factors to me is whether or not I trust the surgeon. Unless she has to have specialized care, I want her own doctor doing her surgeries. I would not take my girl anywhere else for just a surgery like this. She goes to her doctor that I believe is best at making medical/surgical decisions for her. Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't be just as good. I prefer not to drop her off at a new place for very invasive surgery though. So no, I wouldn't go to another general vet that happened to offer this, but that's me.

After Roxxy's recent spay, abdominal surgery myself and knowledge of both types of procedures, I absolutely would pay double. One day, that will probably be the standard, I'm sure of it.

If I had to get a dog spayed and she will be in a lot less pain than a standard spay then I will pay double.

I've never had a dog with a post-spay issue, but I have had gall bladder surgery, and the laproscopic procedure got me up and out in two days, where the open surgery would have had me hospitalized for 5. My healing was remarkable. I would definitely give my girls that advantage if it were available.

Unfortunately, my vet is an old fashioned guy and not state-of-the-art in things like this, so that would be the larger issue. The rescue folks I got my pup from are on the cutting edge, and they did a great job with my Brookie. If it became commonly available, they'd pick it up, and I would trust them.

Not that I'm planning for another pup any time soon! I'm not.

Yes, most definitely especially because of the less pain and quicker healing time.

oopsie
 

I clicked no instead of yes (up too early). I would much prefer an even less invasive surgery by "tying" tubes and vasectomy. There are vets who do it but not to many. It IS harder to do on tiny dogs so it's not normally done on them.

Another option is laser surgery. The incision is about 1" and they are up and playing by the next day. This can be done on any size of dog or cat and we prefer this method. We charge $50.00 more for this option and almost everyone opts for it.

I guess I was one of the few who did not heal quickly with laproscopy surgery when I had my gallbladder out. I woke up in god awful pain and was on the couch for a week in pain and on pain killers every 4 hours. Then it took a few more weeks to be able to do things again. But I still had pain and other issues that continued for awhile longer.:eek:

It is the only surgery I have had since I was 10 when I had tubes put in my ears and adnoids removed. I healed from that super fast ;)

Poor you!! I'm sorry to hear! I had 3 weeks off and enjoyed them immensely. There is one vet I know of out here (San Francisco area) who does vasectomies on dogs, and the problem I see with that is - if two dogs of equal status are in a shelter, and one appears fixed and the other doesn't, they will destroy the one who isn't first because it saves them $30. Sad but true.

And my first yorkie did come from the shelters - she was beautiful (eventually), 4-1/2 pounds - just a perfect little yorkie. So don't let yourself believe that tiny purebred dogs don't end up in such places.

Less invasive procedures would not significantly reduce the cases of mammary cancer and pyometra like spaying does because (unless I'm missing something) the hormones are still influencing things.

I definitely would pay double for less pain and quicker recovery, IF the vet has experience with the lap surgery. I personally, have had a few laproscopic surgeries and find the less invasive option extremely attractive. It does not mean that there is NO pain, but less in deed - at least in my experience.

I have 2 boys, so I don't know the spay process or pain associated as Ive never had a girl dog, however, I think a standard typical spay procedure is pretty well rooted and I'd feel comfortable doing it on an average size, healthy, no risk female. However if I had a girl with health risks (murmur, anesthesia allergies, etc...) I would do the lapro bc to me, that would be the ONLY way she could get done. I wouldn't risk her life for $300 (for example).