Pediatric spay/neuter

[Smalahundur]

As I am getting a new very probably male puppy, which I intend to have neutered as I have no breeding intentions, I am looking in the different opinions on when to neuter.

 

The gospel on these boards (and not only here, it is widespread) seems to be be at least after reaching adulthood, in males typically older than one year old. Of course there are all kinds of variations on this opinion. I think I read most of the arguments.

 

But I ran across an article that questions the scientific validity of those arguments, and actually makes a pretty good case for spaying/neutering at an early age, under six months.

 

Here is the link; http://www.aspcapro.org/resource/shelter-health-animal-care/pediatric-spayneuter

[Tommy Coyote]

I only know that every vet I know doesn't spay before 6 months. The ER vet was telling me about some of the stuff he sees that are the catastrophic result of spaying/neutering too early.

 

Just think what it would do the development of a child if he/she was deprived of all those early hormones. I just think it's not a good idea to spay/neuter too early.

 

Of cours the ASPCA wants to do this. They don't want any unneutered animals.

[Smalahundur]

I only know that every vet I know doesn't spay before 6 months. The ER vet was telling me about some of the stuff he sees that are the catastrophic result of spaying/neutering too early.

 

Just think what it would do the development of a child if he/she was deprived of all those early hormones. I just think it's not a good idea to spay/neuter too early.

 

Of cours the ASPCA wants to do this. They don't want any unneutered animals.

A. We are talking about dogs, let´s keep it that way. You wouldn´t like it either if I would buy your child, keep it prison and make it work for food (I assume you have no trouble with me doing these things to my dogs ).

B. Yes (almost) every vet follows these guide lines, the question is, is there really a solid scientific basis for this? This seems not to be the case. You "thinking it not to be a good idea" is not a very strong argument. Unless of course you can point me at compelling scientific data that supports your claim.

 

And to be clear I am not an advocate of pediatric spaying/neutering, I am just wondering if this article is valid (if not, and this is a colored by politics piece, there should be strong evidence for the benefit of waiting).

Because there are a lot of animals that have been spayed neutered early because of this shelter politic(starting in the seventies) there is a big population of animals to research the effects of doing this procedure early. Any significant adverse effects, even in the long term should have come to light by now.

[maggiesmommy]

I'm admitting my bias upfront because I volunteer at a shelter and we spay/neuter all pups at 12 weeks. However, this is mostly because unaltered animals are not allowed to leave our shelter but we want them to be altered when they're young enough that they're still cute and cuddly and easy to find homes for.

 

I know that the vets I know consider early spaying and neutering to be very low-risk and don't find it problematic. Some even spay/neuter as early as six weeks. I'm not a vet so I can't comment from a professional point of view, but every vet I know sees no problem with pediatric spay/neuter.

[GentleLake]

I didn't read the entire article, just skimmed.

 

But one thing I think should be taken into consideration is the source of the article. It's the ASPA and they have a vested interest (for reasons that I can actually understand) in seeing as many dogs and cats spayed and neutered as possible, and, as they said, compliance among people adopting is lax and impossible to enforce. Another thing I noticed (and admit that I may have missed in my skimming) is citations of source material for the arguments. That, imo, is a huge omission if they want to be taken seriously.

 

I've been following the issue casually for a while now, seeing many articles -- some with citations included -- about the risks of early spay and neuter, including abnormally lengthened weight bearing bones. This article mentions it, but conveniently doesn't discuss any risk factors that may be involved, especially for active working or sport dogs.

 

Personally I would never opt to spay or neuter a dog before 1 1/2 years old when the growth plates have closed. I did adopt a 6 m.o. old pup last year who'd already been spayed, and cringed at the thought of it.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that there's been evidence coming out in the last few years that castrating male dogs actually has come health risks. If I were to get another intact male dog, I'd look for a vet who'd do a vasectomy rather than a castration. It would take care of any risk of unwanted puppies while retaining the hormones that seem to confer certain health benefits.

[GentleLake]

Because there are a lot of animals that have been spayed neutered early because of this shelter politic(starting in the seventies) there is a big population of animals to research the effects of doing this procedure early. Any significant adverse effects, even in the long term should have come to light by now.

 

Have you tried searching the issue to see what you come up with? I'm sure there's lots out there in cyberspace if you want to look.

[Eileen Stein]

I read the linked article and found it unpersuasive. In discussing most of the health issues listed (apart from pyometra and mammary cancer, non-issues for males), it seemed to boil down to "Pediatric spay/neuter hasn't been shown to be worse than spay/neuter at an older age in this particular respect, or it may look worse but needs more study, or it's a little worse but outweighed by the fact that the owner might not spay/neuter later or might go to another vet, or by general population control considerations. There's very little positive here about pediatric neutering except from a population control point of view, and since I would expect to prevent a pup/young dog from breeding, the article wouldn't influence me toward pediatric neutering.

 

I assume you've probably read this article. It discusses spay/neuter generally, but with some specifics about age of surgery (your linked article also ranges into spay/neuter generally as well, though the overall theme is age of surgery). If you haven't read it before, I recommend reading it before making up your mind.

 

ETA: I don't really buy your premise that because a large population exists to be studied, lots of research must have been done on this issue. In whose interest would it be to sponsor such research?

[Smalahundur]

Yes Eileen, I ran across that article a while back, not very conclusive either.

I get the impression from what I read so far that it does not really seem to matter all that much when you spay/neuter. The differences in health effects seem pretty marginal (with the exception of the effect on mammary tumor development in bitches, where spaying at an earlier age has benefits).

The biggest difference is in spaying/neutering versus keeping the animal intact, and even there the numbers are not that impressive. Apart of course from the obvious stuff like male dogs not developing testical cancer (big "duh"), and the females not getting pyometra (can I have another "duh").

Both camps early versus late n/s (and I do not belong in either) do not really convince me, I simply haven´t seen research with very compelling reasons to choose one over the other. But of course that does not mean it does not exist.

[Gideon's girl]

ETA: I don't really buy your premise that because a large population exists to be studied, lots of research must have been done on this issue. In whose interest would it be to sponsor such research?

This. Research is often paid for by the group that wants to prove their own POV. I have personally known of 3 times when findings were hushed up due to the threat of funding withdrawl. So which side has the money?

[Smalahundur]

Well I am absolutely willing to buy that argument, enough examples of such things going on.

But it does not really help with making a decision. I´d rather see some solid trustworthy info, than suspicions about the motivations of a party one does not agree with.

[arf2184]

I recently read this summary:

http://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_determining_best_age_to_spay_or_neuter?page=show#.UgGTfG3qNYE

 

I thought it does a god job of objectively covering the topic without too much detail. It is presented in a way that easy to understand and can aid in making the decision you feel is best for your dog.

 

My last 4 dogs were all altered between 6-10 months old and all of them had some sort of issue that may possibly have been related to being spayed/neutered (Matty - torn CCL, osteosarcoma; Lucy - incontinence; Bear - hip displasia; Meg - spay incontinence). Meg's incontinence is the only one I can say without a doubt was caused by being spayed. The others could be related to early alteration. Obviously Matty's torn CCL and osteosarcoma was not directly caused by being spayed at six months, but the lack of hormones may have made her more at risk for these things. The same goes for Bears hips. There's no way to know if remaining intact or spaying/nuetering later would have made a difference, but it may have. In any case there is enough evidence for me to believe that its better to wait.

 

Spaying and neutering is not natural. Its a convenience for us humans. In all liklihood, it won't hurt to wait and it may be beneficial to your dogs health. My next dog will not be spayed/neutered until 12-24 months of age.

[GentleLake]

I ran across that article a while back, not very conclusive either.

 

At least this one is well furnished with references, which is a big deal when putting out new information or addressing a controversial issue.

 

 

The biggest difference is in spaying/neutering versus keeping the animal intact, and even there the numbers are not that impressive. Apart of course from the obvious stuff like male dogs not developing testical cancer (big "duh"), and the females not getting pyometra (can I have another "duh").

 

Well, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Personally I find increased risk of that long list of things significant, especially for male dogs.

 

And having an old spayed (at 4-6 y.o.) female who has forgotten her housetraining (while otherwise seeming to be cognitively fine) is a pretty big deal that I'd like to have been able to avoid.

[juliepoudrier]

Just to be the counterpoint to Alison, I have two dogs with incontinence. One was spayed at around 18 months and became incontinent around age 7. I don't think the two can necessarily be connected. The other was spayed at 5 years and her incontinence, which is rather intermittent, started soon thereafter. That one is probably spay incontinence, but it may also be exacerbated by the fact that she's an epileptic and is on phenobarbital, which I suppose could contribute to the incontinence problem. So who knows?

 

I know you didn't like the comments relating dogs to humans, but I think it does paint a pretty clear picture. It's my feeling that the hormones produced when an animal reaches sexual maturity are important for normal growth and health and if there's a reasonable way of keeping a dog intact to maturity, I'd do it. (That said, mature males of some species can be dangerous, so I would also advocate earlier neuter of those species compared to, say, a dog or cat.)

 

I have cats who were pediatric S/N because they came from the shelter. With the males, I worry about the early neuter resulting in a smaller than normal urethra, which would put the cat at greater risk for blockage, but so far so good. And honestly, given the number of unwanted pets being killed daily in shelters here in the US, I'd have to lean toward early S/N for most animals just for the sake of preventing irresponsible people from adopting young dogs (or cats) and then reneging on the S/N agreement and allowing their adopted pet to breed.

 

I don't have any studies to point you to, but in the absence of evidence that keeping a male dog intact until sexual maturity is harmful and if I can assume the the owner is responsible enough to prevent unwanted litters of puppies, I see no convincing reason to neuter early (shelter situations excepted).

 

J.

[maggiesmommy]

I have cats who were pediatric S/N because they came from the shelter. With the males, I worry about the early neuter resulting in a smaller than normal urethra, which would put the cat at greater risk for blockage, but so far so good. And honestly, given the number of unwanted pets being killed daily in shelters here in the US, I'd have to lean toward early S/N for most animals just for the sake of preventing irresponsible people from adopting young dogs (or cats) and then reneging on the S/N agreement and allowing their adopted pet to breed.

 

I didn't know about this correlation. Do you have a source? My cat was a pediatric neuter born in a shelter, and he's had four crystal blockages at just four years of age. He's likely going to have to have a very expensive surgery to widen his urethra. No one told me that this could be correlated with being neutered as a kitten, but if you have a source, I'd really like to see it. Thanks for sharing that info.

 

(Still, I'm not sure if I'd want to wait until adulthood to have a male cat neutered because they can ruin a house with spraying and start doing that as early as 4 months.)

[terrecar]

I am probably one of the more militant of those on this board regarding spay/neuter because of what I have seen as a volunteer, and later an administrator, for a shelter. Since I started volunteering as a teen and I'm pretty damn old now, I have seen behind the scenes at a shelter from the population highs of the 70's, when it almost seemed that the 'shelter's' primary activity was euthanasia, through a significant decline in euthanasia rates in later years. I am convinced that the promotion of spay/neuter has been a critical component of that decline.

 

I do think early spay/neuter is good policy to follow in shelters, because you're turning those dogs back out into the general public without knowing that they will live out their days in a responsible home. However, I have never felt the need to have any of my dogs altered before the age of six months. If I ever get another puppy (rather than adult dog), I will probably wait until after 12 months, but it is not any less important to me to have it done.

 

 

ETA: Since my first sentence was inadvertently worded as though I thought there were those on this board who should be spayed or neutered, I've fixed it

[alligande]

I am not a scientist, but read extensively and talked to all lot of people including my own vet and came down on the side of waiting, I planned on neutering at 12-18 months and have ended up not bothering because there is nothing in my dogs personality that warrants it.

I would not be inclined to give to much weight to an article published by the ASPCA on the subject, all the shelters/ rescues and human societies in America have an agenda to promote spay/neuter, I have no problem with that agenda and do understand why they do it but it does prevent from me regarding the article as anything more than a justification of the practice of pediatric spay/neuter which many have questioned.

[geonni banner]

Found this the other day while researching for a blog post.

 

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/your-dog-needs-to-be-spayed-or-neutered-right/

 

I personally prefer intact animals. I understand why shelters neuter early or at all, and I'm aware that a fair percentage of adults can't be trusted with an electric drill, much less an intact dog or cat. But I've had two intact males that never sired a pup. My current dog, a bitch is spayed for two reasons - one, she may outlive me, and I know that a spayed bitch isn't getting pregnant by someone else's mistake. The other is, due to mobility issues, my dog is exercised daily in off-leash areas with a number of other dogs.

 

ETA: Here's another one I looked at yesterday. Please note, this is an AKC page.

 

http://www.akcchf.org/canine-health/your-dogs-health/determining-the-best-age-at.html

[jb777]

I regret spaying my girl at 6 months. I would wait next time, definitely need to research this more. My border collie mix had some strange health issues. She did not do well with dry dog food. And in the end she got a tumor on spleen at 8 years. She was a great dog. The 8 years went by to quickly. I remember how playful she was earlier this year, and then shockingly she got ill and had to let her go. I miss her. I've never experienced a more playful, happy, loving, protective, smart dog than my border collie mix. She put herself way into my heart. Take care, good luck!

[mum24dog]

I regret spaying my girl at 6 months. I would wait next time, definitely need to research this more. My border collie mix had some strange health issues. She did not do well with dry dog food. And in the end she got a tumor on spleen at 8 years.

 

You seem to be connecting her health issues with the age at which she was spayed. With what evidence?

 

I can cite you dogs of my acquaintance with similar problems, some entire.

 

Heck - I know one entire dog that can't drink water from anywhere other than where he lives without getting the squits. That is weird.

[jb777]

Just some articles I read recently.

 

My dog had cancer nodules spreading throughout her body. I'm learning all about prevention for tumors. And spaying at the right time came up in my search.

 

http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/health/articles/spaying-female-dog.html

 

http://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_determining_best_age_to_spay_or_neuter#.UgN5fH-GfrO

 

Hemangiosarcoma is a malignant tumor of vascular tissue, including the heart, major blood vessels, and spleen. Large breeds in general are at increased risk with some breeds specifically predisposed (Table 1). Two studies have documented increased incidence, from 2.2 to 5 times, in gonadectomized males and females compared to intact animals. Overall incidence of hemangiosarcoma is low, at 0.2%. Surgical removal is the treatment of choice, if possible.

[Maralynn]

IMO it is a 50/50 shot with females. Lower risk of hemangio when left intact but high risk of mammary cancer. I lost my first dog to hemangio at the age of 12. She was spayed at 6 after she developed mammary tumors.

[mum24dog]

Not really 50;50.

 

Haemangioma has an overall 0.2% incidence and is rare so a high increased percentage risk may sound scary but still be a low figure in real numbers. Even a five fold increase in risk only amounts to 1%, and that's 1% of all dogs including those predisposed to the disease by breed, so non predisposed dogs will have a lower risk.

 

A bitch allowed to have at least 2 oestrus cycles has an actually 26% risk of developing mammary tumours (according to the same link) of which 50% will statistically be malignant.

 

A 13% risk of malignant mammary tumours against at most a 1% risk of haemangioma. I know which risk I'd take on behalf of my dog.

 

Actual figures from different studies vary but the picture is similar.

 

IMO it is a 50/50 shot with females. Lower risk of hemangio when left intact but high risk of mammary cancer. I lost my first dog to hemangio at the age of 12. She was spayed at 6 after she developed mammary tumors.

[Eileen Stein]

Haemangioma has an overall 0.2% incidence and is rare so a high increased percentage risk may sound scary but still be a low figure in real numbers. Even a five fold increase in risk only amounts to 1%, and that's 1% of all dogs including those predisposed to the disease by breed, so non predisposed dogs will have a lower risk.

 

I see that the PetMD article states (without attribution) that the overall incidence of hemangiosarcoma is 0.2%. I'm snowed under with other stuff right now and don't have time to research it, but I have to say that I've known so many dogs who've died of hemangiosarcoma that it's hard for me to accept that it's that rare.

[mum24dog]

I see that the PetMD article states (without attribution) that the overall incidence of hemangiosarcoma is 0.2%. I'm snowed under with other stuff right now and don't have time to research it, but I have to say that I've known so many dogs who've died of hemangiosarcoma that it's hard for me to accept that it's that rare.

 

I can't think of any that I'm aware of - a total contrast to the number of entire bitches I've known that died of malignant mammary tumours.

[Smalahundur]

There is also the additional complication that all these numbers are from epidemiological studies; the correlations found are not necessarily causalities...