Original Article - Research
Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Transvaginal Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy in Dogs
Article first published online: 18 JUL 2012
© Copyright 2012 by The American College of VeterinarySurgeons
Volume 41, Issue 6, pages 755–758, August 2012
How to Cite
Bakhtiari, J., Khalaj, A. R., Aminlou, E. and Niasari-Naslaji, A. (2012), Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Transvaginal Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy in Dogs. Veterinary Surgery, 41: 755–758. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2012.01023.x
- Issue published online: 6 AUG 2012
- Article first published online: 18 JUL 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: MAY 2012
- Manuscript Received: NOV 2010
To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a transvaginal approach for laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy (OVH) in dogs and to compare it with conventional laparoscopic OVH.
Adult healthy female mixed breed dogs (n = 24).
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.
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.
Transvaginal approach for laparoscopic OVH is a feasible technique with the advantage of requiring one less abdominal portal.