Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Transvaginal Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy in Dogs

Authors

  • Jalal Bakhtiari DVM, PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Minimally invasive Surgery Research Center, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
    • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Iran
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ali Reza Khalaj MD,

    1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
    2. Minimally invasive Surgery Research Center, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Elham Aminlou DVM,

    1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Iran
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Amir Niasari-Naslaji DVM, PhD

    1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Iran
    Search for more papers by this author

Corresponding Author

Dr. Jalal Bakhtiari, DVM, PhD, Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 14155-6453, Tehran, Iran

E-mail: bakhtiar@ut.ac.ir

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a transvaginal approach for laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy (OVH) in dogs and to compare it with conventional laparoscopic OVH.

Study Design

Prospective study.

Animals

Adult healthy female mixed breed dogs (n = 24).

Methods

Dogs (weighing 14–17 kg) were anesthetized and positioned in dorsal recumbency for ovariohysterectomy. Dogs were prepared for either conventional (n = 12) or transvaginal (n = 12) laparoscopic OVH. For conventional laparoscopic OVH, 3 midline abdominal portals were used and for the transvaginal approach, 2 midline abdominal portals and one vaginal portal were used. The transected ovarian pedicles, broad ligament, and uterus were removed through the umbilical region in the conventional method and through the vagina in the transvaginal method. Mean surgical time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, clinical and hematologic findings, and wound complications were compared.

Results

OVH was successfully performed without complications using both methods. Mean ± SD surgical times were similar between conventional (34.2 ± 4.03 min) and transvaginal (37.0 ± 3.56 min) methods. No significant differences, hematologic and clinical variables, were found between groups. The vaginal port could limit surgical maneuvers ergonomically during manipulation of the uterine body.

Conclusions

Transvaginal approach for laparoscopic OVH is a feasible technique with the advantage of requiring one less abdominal portal.

Ancillary