• 1. Case JB, Marvel SJ, Boscan P, et al. Surgical time and severity of postoperative pain in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy with one, two, or three instrument cannulas. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239:203208.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Davidson EB, Moll HD, Payton ME. Comparison of laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33:6269.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Devitt CM, Cox RE, Hailey JJ. Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227:921927.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Dupre G, Fiorbianco V, Skalicky M, et al. Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: comparison between single portal and two-portal access. Vet Surg 2009; 38:818824.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Pope JF, Knowles TG. Retrospective analysis of the learning curve associated with laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs and associated perioperative complication rates. Vet Surg 2014; 43:668677.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Runge JJ, Curcillo PG II, King SA, et al. Initial application of reduced port surgery using the single port access technique for laparoscopic canine ovariectomy. Vet Surg 2012; 41:803806.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Fransson BA, Ragle CA. Assessment of laparoscopic skills before and after simulation training with a canine abdominal model. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236:10791084.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Fransson BA, Ragle CA, Bryan ME. Effects of two training curricula on basic laparoscopic skills and surgical performance among veterinarians. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 241:451460.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Fransson B. The future: taking veterinary laparoscopy to the next level. J Feline Med Surg 2014; 16:4250.

  • 10. Simforoosh N, Khazaeli M, Nouralizadeh A, et al. Laparoscopic animal surgery for training without sacrificing animals; introducing the rabbit as a model for infantile laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011; 21:929933.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Halpin VJ, Soper NJ. Decision to convert to open methods. In: Whelan RL, Fleshman JW, Fowler DL, eds. The SAGES manual: perioperative care in minimally invasive surgery. New York: Springer, 2006; 296306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Culp WT, Mayhew PD, Brown DC. The effect of laparoscopic versus open ovariectomy on postsurgical activity in small dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38:811817.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Doerner J, Fiorbianco V, Dupre G. Intercostal insertion of Veress needle for canine laparoscopic procedures: a cadaver study. Vet Surg 2012; 41:362366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy. Biomed Bull 1984; 5:16.

  • 15. Tams TR. Laparoscopy: instrumentation and technique. In: Tams TR, Magne ML, eds. Small animal endoscopy. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby Inc, 1999; 397408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Mayhew PD, Brown DC. Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36:541547

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Van Nimwegen SA, Van Swol CF, Kirpensteijn J. Neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet surgical laser versus bipolar electrocoagulation for laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2005; 34:353357.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Van Nimwegen SA, Kirpensteijn J. Comparison of Nd:YAG surgical laser and Remorgida bipolar electrosurgery forceps for canine laparoscopic ovariectomy. Vet Surg 2007; 36:533540.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Van Goethem BE, Rosenveldt KW, Kirpensteijn J. Monopolar versus bipolar electrocoagulation in canine laparoscopic ovariectomy: a nonrandomized, prospective, clinical trial. Vet Surg 2003; 32:464470.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Berzon JL. Complications of elective ovariohysterectomies in the dog and cat at a teaching institution: clinical review of 853 cases. Vet Surg 1979; 8:8991.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Burrow R, Batchelor D, Cripps P. Complications observed during and after ovariohysterectomy of 142 bitches at a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet Rec 2005; 157:829833.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Pearson H. The complications of ovariohysterectomy in the bitch. J Small Anim Pract 1973; 14:257266.

  • 23. Barrera JS, Monnet E. Effectiveness of a bipolar vessel sealant device for sealing uterine horns and bodies from dogs. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73:302305.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, et al. High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 1998; 12:876878.

  • 25. Shamiyeh A, Schrenk P, Tulipan L, et al. A new bipolar feedback-controlled sealing system for closure of the cystic duct and artery. Surg Endosc 2002; 16:812813.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Ohlund M, Hoglund O, Olsson U, et al. Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: a comparison of the LigaSure and the SonoSurg systems. J Small Anim Pract 2011; 52:290294.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2004; 240:518528.

  • 28. Fransson BA, Ragle CA, Bryan ME. A laparoscopic surgical skills assessment tool for veterinarians. J Vet Med Educ 2010; 37:304313.

  • 29. Rawlings CA. Laparoscopy. In: Tams TR, Rawlings CA, eds. Small animal endoscopy. 3rd ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2011; 397471.

  • 30. DeTora M, McCarthy RJ. Ovariohysterectomy versus ovariectomy for elective sterilization of female dogs and cats: is removal of the uterus necessary? J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239:14091412.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Freeman LJ, Ferguson N, Litster A, et al. Service learning: Priority 4 Paws mobile surgical service for shelter animals. J Vet Med Educ 2013; 40:389396.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Harris KP, Adams VJ, Fordyce P, et al. Comparison of surgical duration of canine ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy in a veterinary teaching hospital. J Small Anim Pract 2013; 54:579583.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Kennedy KC, Tamburello KR, Hardie RJ. Peri-operative morbidity associated with ovariohysterectomy performed as part of a third-year veterinary surgical-training program. J Vet Med Educ 2011; 38:408413.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Rates of intraoperative complications and conversion to laparotomy during laparoscopic ovariectomy performed by veterinary students: 161 cases (2010–2014)

Adam M. NylundDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.

Search for other papers by Adam M. Nylund in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Adam DruryDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521.

Search for other papers by Adam Drury in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Heather WeirDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521.

Search for other papers by Heather Weir in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
, and
Eric MonnetDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521.

Search for other papers by Eric Monnet in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess rates of intraoperative complications and conversion to laparotomy associated with supervised veterinary students performing laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs.

DESIGN Retrospective case series.

ANIMALS 161 female shelter dogs for which elective laparoscopic ovariectomy had been performed by supervised senior (fourth-year) veterinary students from 2010 through 2014.

PROCEDURES Medical records of all dogs were reviewed and data collected regarding duration of surgery, surgical complications and other characteristics, and whether conversion to laparotomy was required.

RESULTS Laparoscopic ovariectomy was performed with a 2-cannula technique and a 10-mm vessel-sealing device for hemostasis in all dogs. A Veress needle was used for initial insufflation in 144 (89.4%) dogs; method of insufflation was not reported for the remaining 17 (10.6%) dogs. Mean ± SD duration of surgery was 114.90 ± 33.40 minutes. Surgical complications, all classified as minor blood loss, occurred in 24 (14.9%) dogs. These included splenic puncture during insertion of the Veress needle (n = 20 [12.4%]) and minor bleeding from the ovarian pedicle (4 [2.5%]). Splenic puncture required no intervention, and ovarian pedicle bleeding required application of the vessel-sealing device an additional time to control the bleeding. Two ovaries were dropped in the abdominal cavity at the time of removal. Both were retrieved without complication. Conversion to laparotomy was not required for any dog. All dogs were discharged from the hospital within 24 hours after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs was performed safely by closely supervised novice surgeons, with only minor intraoperative complications encountered and no need for conversion to laparotomy.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess rates of intraoperative complications and conversion to laparotomy associated with supervised veterinary students performing laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs.

DESIGN Retrospective case series.

ANIMALS 161 female shelter dogs for which elective laparoscopic ovariectomy had been performed by supervised senior (fourth-year) veterinary students from 2010 through 2014.

PROCEDURES Medical records of all dogs were reviewed and data collected regarding duration of surgery, surgical complications and other characteristics, and whether conversion to laparotomy was required.

RESULTS Laparoscopic ovariectomy was performed with a 2-cannula technique and a 10-mm vessel-sealing device for hemostasis in all dogs. A Veress needle was used for initial insufflation in 144 (89.4%) dogs; method of insufflation was not reported for the remaining 17 (10.6%) dogs. Mean ± SD duration of surgery was 114.90 ± 33.40 minutes. Surgical complications, all classified as minor blood loss, occurred in 24 (14.9%) dogs. These included splenic puncture during insertion of the Veress needle (n = 20 [12.4%]) and minor bleeding from the ovarian pedicle (4 [2.5%]). Splenic puncture required no intervention, and ovarian pedicle bleeding required application of the vessel-sealing device an additional time to control the bleeding. Two ovaries were dropped in the abdominal cavity at the time of removal. Both were retrieved without complication. Conversion to laparotomy was not required for any dog. All dogs were discharged from the hospital within 24 hours after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs was performed safely by closely supervised novice surgeons, with only minor intraoperative complications encountered and no need for conversion to laparotomy.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Monnet (Eric.Monnet@ColoState.edu).