Prevalence and Risk Factors of Complications in Canine Laparoscopic Ovariectomy and Ovariohysterectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Öz

This meta-analysis investigated the pooled prevalence and risk factors of intra- and postoperative complications in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy (LOVE) or laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy (LOVH). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar was performed for studies published between January 2000 and October 2025. Eligible studies provided numerical data on intraoperative and/or postoperative complications and clearly reported the number of laparoscopic ports used. Forty-three studies comprising 45 analytical arms and 2.548 female dogs met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of total complications was 14.4% (95% CI 10.5–18.8) under the random-effects model, indicating high heterogeneity (I²=87.1%). For LOVE, the pooled prevalence was 10.6% (95% CI 7.4–14.3), whereas for LOVH it was 31.6% (95% CI 21.3–42.9), both showing substantial heterogeneity (I²>75%). The odds of complications were significantly lower for LOVE than for LOVH (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.18–0.30, p<0.001), suggesting an approximately 4.3-fold higher risk during LOVH. When analysed by port configuration, the one-port approach was associated with a significantly higher complication risk than the two-port technique (OR=2.13, 95% CI 1.37–3.32, p<0.001), while no difference was found between one- and three-port procedures (OR=1.24, 95% CI 0.83–1.85, p=0.29). The two-port configuration showed the lowest odds of complications compared with the three-port approach (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77, p<0.001). In conclusion, LOVE was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of complications compared with LOVH. When analysed by port configuration, the two-port technique demonstrated a significantly lower odds of complications compared with the one- and three-port approaches. These findings indicate that both surgical procedure type and port number are important factors influencing complication risk in canine laparoscopic sterilization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Complication
• Dog
• Meta-analysis
• Laparoscopy
• Ovariectomy
• Ovariohysterectomy

Köpeklerde Laparoskopik Ovariektomi ve Ovariohisterektomi Sonrası MeyKöpeklerde Laparoskopik Ovariektomi ve Ovariohisterektomi Sonrası Meydana Gelen Komplikasyonların Prevalansı ve Risk Faktörleri: Bir Meta-Analiz Çalışmasıdana Gelen Komplikasyonların Prevalansı ve Risk Faktörleri: Bir Meta-Analiz Çalışması

Öz

Bu meta-analizde, köpeklerde laparoskopik ovariektomi (LOVE) veya laparoskopik ovariohisterektomi (LOVH) uygulanan bilimsel çalışmalarda intraoperatif ve postoperatif komplikasyonların birleşik prevalansı ve risk faktörleri araştırılmıştır. Ocak 2000 ile Ekim 2025 tarihleri arasında yayımlanan çalışmalar için PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct ve Google Scholar veri tabanlarında kapsamlı bir tarama yapılmıştır. İntraoperatif ve/veya postoperatif komplikasyonlara ilişkin sayısal veriler ve kullanılan laparoskopik port sayısının açıkça bildirildiği çalışmalar araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Buna göre sunulan çalışma 43 çalışma, 45 analitik kol ve toplam 2.548 dişi köpeği kapsamıştır. Rastgele etkiler modeli altında toplam komplikasyonların birleşik prevalansı %14.4 (%95 GA %10.5-18.8) olarak hesaplanmış ve yüksek heterojenite (I²=%87.1) gözlenmiştir. LOVE için birleşik prevalans %10.6 (%95 GA %7.4-14.3), LOVH için ise %31.6 (%95 GA %21.3–42.9) olarak bulunmuş, her iki analizde de belirgin heterojenite (I²>%75) saptanmıştır. Komplikasyon olasılığı, LOVE’de LOVH’ye göre anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulunmuştur (OR=0.23, %95 GA 0.18-0.30, p<0.001). Buna göre LOVH sırasında yaklaşık 4.3 kat daha yüksek bir risk olduğu görülmektedir. Port konfigürasyonuna göre yapılan analizde, tek port yaklaşımı iki port tekniğine kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha yüksek komplikasyon riski ile ilişkili bulunurken (OR=2.13, %95 GA 1.37-3.32, p<0.001) tek port ile üç portlu yöntem arasında fark saptanmamıştır (OR=1.24, %95 GA 0.83-1.85, p=0.29). İki port konfigürasyonu, üç port yaklaşımına kıyasla en düşük komplikasyon olasılığını göstermiştir (OR=0.58, %95 GA 0.44-0.77, p<0.001). Sonuç olarak, LOVE prosedürü LOVH’ye kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha düşük komplikasyon prevalansı ile ilişkilidir. Port konfigürasyonuna göre yapılan analizde, iki port tekniğinin tek ve üç portlu yaklaşımlara kıyasla komplikasyon olasılığının anlamlı derecede daha düşük olduğu gösterilmiştir. Bu bulgular, köpeklerde laparoskopik sterilizasyon sırasında cerrahi prosedür tipi ve kullanılan port sayısının komplikasyon riski üzerinde belirleyici faktörler olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Komplikasyon
• Köpek
• Laparoskopi
• Meta-analiz
• Ovariektomi
• Ovariohisterektomi

Kaynakça

1. Arntz GJHM (2019). Transvaginal laparoscopic ovariectomy in 60 dogs: description of the technique and comparison with 2-portal-access laparoscopic ovariectomy. Vet Surg, 48(5), 726-734.
2. Bianchi A, Collivignarelli F, Vignoli M et al. (2021). A comparison of times taken for the placement of the first portal and complication rates between the Veress needle technique and the modified Hasson technique in canine ovariectomy laparoscopic surgery. Animals (Basel), 11 (10), 2936.
3. Bydzovsky ND, Bockstahler B, Dupré G (2019). Single-port laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy with a modified glove-port technique in dogs. Vet Surg, 48(5), 715-725.
4. Buote NJ (2022). Updates in laparoscopy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract, 52(2), 513-529.
5. Buote NJ, Fransson BA (2022). Small Animal Laparoscopy and Thoracoscopy. Fransson BA, Mayhew PD (Ed). Laparoscopic Ovariectomy, Ovariohysterectomy, and Hysterectomy (pp. 254-266). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
6. Case JB, Marvel SJ, Boscan P, Monnet EL (2011). Surgical time and severity of postoperative pain in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy with one, two, or three instrument cannulas. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 239(2), 203-208.
7. Charlesworth TM, Sanchez FT (2019). A comparison of the rates of postoperative complications between dogs undergoing laparoscopic and open ovariectomy. Small Anim Pract, 60(4), 218-222.
8. Corriveau KM, Giuffrida MA, Mayhew PD, Runge JJ (2017). Outcome of laparoscopic ovariectomy and laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs: 278 cases (2003-2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc, 251(4), 443-450.

9. Costa GL, Leonardi F, Licata P et al. (2025). Ovariectomy in Canine Surgical Medicine: A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Approaches and the Nociceptive, Inflammatory, and Oxidative Stress Responses. Animals (Basel), 15(16), 2336.
10. Coutinho AJ, Gasser B, Rodriguez MGK et al. (2018). Comparison between single port videolaparoscopy and miniceliotomy with snock hook ovariohysterectomy techniques in bitches. Cienc Rural, 48(10) e20180345.
11. Culp WT, Mayhew PD, Brown DC (2009). The effect of laparoscopic versus open ovariectomy on postsurgical activity in small dogs. Vet Surg, 38(7), 811-817.
12. Delaune T, Matres-Lorenzo L, Bernardé A, Bernard F (2021). Use of a T'LIFT transabdominal organ retraction device in two-portal laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs. Vet Surg, 50(Suppl 1), O40-O48.
13. Davidson EB, Moll HD, Payton ME (2004). Comparison of laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Surg, 33(1), 62-69.
14. Degani M, Di Franco C, Tayari H et al. (2023). Postoperative Analgesic Effect of Bilateral Quadratus Lumborum Block (QLB) for Canine Laparoscopic Ovariectomy: Comparison of Two Concentrations of Ropivacaine. Animals (Basel), 13(23), 3604.
15. Del Romero A, Cuervo B, Peláez P et al. (2020). Changes in Acute Phase Proteins in Bitches after Laparoscopic, Midline, and Flank Ovariectomy Using the Same Method for Hemostasis. Animals (Basel), 10(12), 2223.
16. DerSimonian R, Laird N (2015). Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials, 45(Pt A), 139-145.
17. Devitt CM, Cox RE, Hailey JJ (2005). Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 227(6), 921-927.
18. Driessen F, Marrero JD, Grinwis GCM, van Nimwegen SA (2023). Comparison of two advanced bipolar tissue sealer/dividers for laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: articulating enseal G2 versus Ligasure Maryland device. Acta Vet Scand, 65(1), 51.
19. Dupré G, Fiorbianco V, Skalicky M et al. (2009). Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: comparison between single portal and two-portal access. Vet Surg, 38(7), 818-824.
20. Dutta A, Maiti S, Pillai AP, Kumar N (2010). Evaluation of different laparoscopic sterilization techniques in a canine birth control program. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 34(4), 393-402.
21. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315 (7109), 629-634.
22. Espadas-González L, Usón-Casaús JM, Pastor-Sirvent N et al. (2022). Evaluation of the Two-Point Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Laparoscopic Canine Ovariectomy. Animals (Basel), 12(24), 3556.
23. Espadas-González L, Usón-Casaús JM, Pastor-Sirvent N et al. (2023). Using complete blood count-derived inflammatory markers to compare postoperative inflammation in dogs undergoing open or laparoscopic ovariectomy. Vet Rec, 193(3), e2835.
24. Forbes JN, Monnet E (2023). A vessel sealing device and an ultrasonic dissector are equally effective and safe for single port laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs. Am J Vet Res, 84(10), 1-6.
25. Freeman LJ, Rahmani EY, Al-Haddad M et al. (2010). Comparison of pain and postoperative stress in dogs undergoing natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic, and open oophorectomy. Gastrointest Endosc, 72(2), 373-380.
26. Fuertes-Recuero M, de Segura IAG, López AS et al. (2024). Postoperative pain in dogs undergoing either laparoscopic or open ovariectomy. Vet J, 306, 106156.
27. Granados JR, Usón-Casaus J, Martínez JM, Sánchez-Margallo F, Pérez-Merino E (2017). Canine laparoscopic ovariectomy using two 3- and 5-mm portal sites: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Can Vet J, 58(6), 565-570.
28. Heblinski N, Bruckner M (2018). Vergleich zweier Instrumente zur Gefäßversiegelung bei der laparaskopisch-assistierten Ovariohysterektomie der Hündin. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere, 46(06), 363-369.
29. Lacitignola L, Guadalupi M, Massari F (2021). Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in small animals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current veterinary literature. Vet Sci, 8(8), 144.
30. Manassero M, Leperlier D, Vallefuoco R, Viateau V (2012). Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs using a single-port multiple-access device. Vet Rec, 171(3), 69.
31. Martin KW, Karn K, Mickas MS, Fransson BA (2021). Comparison between intracorporeal and extracorporeal ligations in a laparoscopic ovariectomy model in dogs. Vet Surg, 50(3), 537-545.
32. Matsunami T (2022). Laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy for dogs under 5 kg body weight. Vet Surg, 51(Suppl 1), O92-O97.
33. Maurin MP, Mullins RA, Singh A, Mayhew PD (2020). A systematic review of complications related to laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted procedures in dogs. Vet Surg, 49(Suppl 1), O5-O14.
34. Mayhew PD, Brown DC (2007). Comparison of three techniques for ovarian pedicle hemostasis during laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy. Vet Surg, 36(6), 541-547.
35. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
36. Moxon R, Yarwood E, Hawkins H, Came J, England GCW (2025). Laparoscopic ovariectomy provides favourable peri- and postoperative outcomes compared with ovariohysterectomy via celiotomy in bitches. J Small Anim Pract, 10.1111/jsap.70013.
37. Nylund AM, Drury A, Weir H, Monnet E (2017). Rates of intraoperative complications and conversion to laparotomy during laparoscopic ovariectomy performed by veterinary students: 161 cases (2010-2014). J Am Vet Med Assoc, 251(1), 95-99.
38. Ohlund M, Hoglund O, Olsson U, Lagerstedt AS (2011). Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: a comparison of the LigaSure™ and the SonoSurg™ systems. J Small Anim Pract, 52(6), 290-294.
39. Paolini A, Santoro F, Bianchi A et al. (2022). Use of transversus abdominis plane and intercostal blocks in bitches undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Vet Sci, 9(11), 604.
40. Pope JF, Knowles TG (2014). Retrospective analysis of the learning curve associated with laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs and associated perioperative complication rates. Vet Surg, 43(6), 668-677.
41. Reichler IM (2009). Gonadectomy in cats and dogs: a review of risks and benefits. Reprod Domest Anim, 44(Suppl 2), 29-35.
42. Ruiz IC, Acevedo CM, Rodriguez M (2008). Description and evaluation of a laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy technique in healthyfemale dogs. Rev Colomb Cienc Pec, 21, 546-558.
43. Runge JJ, Mayhew PD (2013). Evaluation of single port access gastropexy and ovariectomy using articulating instruments and angled telescopes in dogs. Vet Surg, 42(7), 807-813.
44. Runge JJ, Boston RC, Ross SB, Brown DC (2014). Evaluation of the learning curve for a board-certified veterinary surgeon performing laparoendoscopic single-site ovariectomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 245(7), 828-835.
45. Silva MAM, Toniollo GH, Flores FN et al. (2015). Surgical time and complications of total transvaginal (total-NOTES), single-port laparoscopic-assisted and conventional ovariohysterectomy in bitches. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec, 67(3), 647-654.
46. Siracusa C, Manteca X, Cerón J et al. (2008). Perioperative stress response in dogs undergoing elective surgery: variations in behavioural, neuroendocrine, immune and acute phase responses. Anim Welf, 17(3), 259-273.
47. Spillebeen AL, Janssens SSDS, Thomas RE, Kirpensteijn J, van Nimwegen SA (2017). Cordless ultrasonic dissector versus advanced bipolar vessel sealing device for laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs. Vet Surg, 46(4), 467-477.
48. Sendag S, Yildiz M, Conza T, Wehrend A (2025). Two-Portal Access Endoscopic Bilateral Ovariectomy in Bitches. FU Vet J Health Sci, 39(2), 85-89.
49. Tavares IT, Rivero R, Sales-Luís JP et al. (2023). Premedication with acetazolamide: Is its use for postoperative pain and stress control after laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs ruled out?. Vet Med Sci, 9(3), 1114-1123.
50. Tez G, Kanca H, Ergul S (2023). Surgical Time for Laparoscopic Ovariectomy in Adult and Prepubertal Dogs. Harran Univ Vet Fak Derg, 12(2), 146-151.
51. Tiosso CF, Voorwald FA, Brun MV et al. (2025). Single-port video-assisted laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy using operative endoscope or SILS™ device in dogs. Res Vet Sci, 192, 105704.
52. Van Goethem BE, Rosenveldt KW, Kirpensteijn J (2003). Monopolar versus bipolar electrocoagulation in canine laparoscopic ovariectomy: a nonrandomized, prospective, clinical trial. Vet Surg, 32(5), 464-470.
53. Van Goethem B, van Nimwegen SA, Akkerdaas I, Murrell JC, Jolle K (2012). The effect of neuromuscular blockade on canine laparoscopic ovariectomy: a double-blinded, prospective clinical trial. Vet Surg, 41(3), 374-380.
54. Van Nimwegen SA, Kirpensteijn J (2007). Comparison of Nd: YAG surgical laser and Remorgida bipolar electrosurgery forceps for canine laparoscopic ovariectomy. Vet Surg, 36(6), 533-540.