# New male sterilization procedure



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Would you use this procedure to sterilize? 

New Sterilization Procedure in Neutering Male Dogs


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

I'd be open to it but would discuss it at length with my vet, I trust him to be honest and help me make the right decision


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Neutersol, used to neuter male dogs has been around for years. It was all the rage for awhile, but pretty much disappeared when issues showed up after injections, short and long term. None of the vets I have worked for ever used it.........
Maybe this new one will be better, with less complications.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

What kind of issues? 

I would think anytime you inject something that will purposely cause fibrosis that there is a risk of that same "medicine" causing fibrosis in an unintended area?


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

I would much rather opt for a surgical neuter over this. If I felt the need to have my dog castrated I wouldn't want to do it by injecting a foreign substance into his body. 

(Yes, I'm aware they use chemicals for anesthesia, but, this is actually making major changes to the body, whereas the others temporarily anesthetize the dog...and have been around a long time and are used thousands of times through a vet's career).

I think a simple ten-minute surgery is a lot safer, and as an added plus over the injectable drug, it improves the view from the back, lol, for shorter-haired dogs. (Not that I would ever get a dog neutered for that reason, just being facetious).


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Exactly, the injection traveled to areas outside of testicles and fibrosis happened in those areas also. Most dogs had to be sedated anyway to be injected with liquid in testicles, not many would take it awake, so sedation was done anyway. Puppies that were injected had lots of pain and crying, even at a young age.
If you are going to neuter, use the old tried and true method. If you REALLY need testicles to make you feel better that you dog has something in his sack, get neuticals implanted....


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

wyominggrandma said:


> Exactly, the injection traveled to areas outside of testicles and fibrosis happened in those areas also. Most dogs had to be sedated anyway to be injected with liquid in testicles, not many would take it awake, so sedation was done anyway. Puppies that were injected had lots of pain and crying, even at a young age.
> If you are going to neuter, use the old tried and true method. If you REALLY need testicles to make you feel better that you dog has something in his sack, get neuticals implanted....


I didn't know they had to be anesthetized anyway. I think that really makes a clear-cut case for surgery.

And injectable might be a god-send for cash-strapped shelters but for the individual owner a surgical neuter is still best IMO.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

wyominggrandma - was there any benefit at all? The article says that it sterilized but leaves some ability to create testosterone. what would the advantages to that be?

And no, I"m not neutering any dogs...all females, all spayed.


----------



## Woof_Terrorist (Aug 3, 2012)

I work with Medical devices. On reading this article it looks promising. FDA does not grant permission on a whim. I trust the FDA. 

However mistakes can happen. 

I would recommend watching this product for about 2 years before actually using it. Also read up on the clinical trial notes. 

The only true concern I have, is the drug having adverse side effects.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

which is why Neutersol you don't hear of neutersol... It has been around for years, now a new drug is making its appearance. 
I don't imagine all dogs had to be drugged, but I can't name many dogs I know that would happily lay on the table while a needle was inserted into the scrotum/testicles one at a time..... Would you?
The advantages is quick sterilezation of dogs, puppies especially without surgery. I imagine that most shelters would be able to hold struggling puppies while injections were made in the scrotum.. No anesthesia so much cheaper. All the vets I worked for would not use Neutersol, maybe this new one will be better. 
I guess the main good thing about injectable neutering would be "supposed" low cost for shelters/humane societies and even regular pet owners who do not want to spend alot of money on normal neutering. Truthfully, I would not put my dog through more pain associated with fibrosis away from the injection site, I would imagine alot of pain while injecting the testicles and any other problems seen now or in the future to make it cheaper. 
And like posted above, I would certainly wait a few years to use it after there is actually posted articles and information from "regular" folks who have had it done, not just studies, etc. 
So many "good" things are suggested as the best for out pets, then it turns out to maybe not be so good.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think my issue is that a drug that works by causing fibrosis in the testicles can't be good. Who is to say that the drug wont' travel to the kidneys? The bladder? And cause fibrosis there? Unless there is a great benefit to leaving a partially functioning hormone system that FAR outweighs the risk of the side affects, I just can't see this option as a good thing for the animals.

And if you are going to knock them out and do a painful procedure, why not have a vasectomy done on them if having the hormones is your goal.


----------



## Woof_Terrorist (Aug 3, 2012)

Dear friends,
FDA is good. Its on our side. Trust me, we spend around 36 to 100 mil and 6 to 12 years on clinical trials required by the FDA, before we can release a medical device or drug.

FDA is our beacon of hope, everything in every other country is a joke. 

But as I said, mistakes can happen, so wait for 1-2 years. But at the same time, dont be close minded. 

You are right in your fears, but lets hope for the best.

And who would not like an injection compared to a surgery? Medical decisions are based primarily not only on efficacy, but also recovery time.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Dear FDA Fan,

Why are you even bringing the FDA into the conversation? Is it wrong to discuss an option instead of blindly following an organization that has pulled many approved drugs off the market or added black box warnings to many drugs after the fact? Why is it close minded to discuss a newly offered procedure?


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

If an injection causes this major damage what else can you expect? No way would I take that risk. Just neuter him surgically if I wanted to neuter a male dog.
Of course it "it is safe" just like all the other vaccinations that have damaged dogs over the years (not)


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

Jax08 said:


> Dear FDA Fan,
> 
> Why are you even bringing the FDA into the conversation? Is it wrong to discuss an option instead of blindly following an organization that has pulled many approved drugs off the market or added black box warnings to many drugs after the fact? Why is it close minded to discuss a newly offered procedure?


*AMEN*:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Woof_Terrorist (Aug 3, 2012)

I brought FDA in to the topic, because it is the organization which has approved the usage of this product and I believe in it. 


Do you really think your fears were not considered by a team of experienced clinicians who set the ground for clinical trials before approving the drug? 

Moderator, I would request you monitor this thread. It is highly dangerous when people seek to side line official organizations trusted to deliver safety information based on scientific facts, in favor of "Grand-ma wisdom".

With over a decade or more of health care experience, let me say this : going for surgery is the last resort. You have no idea how many things can go wrong. Did you know even in Mayo Clinic, one of the best run hospitals in the world, one out of every 80 patients leaves a surgery with a retained foreign object in their body?

Also, do note: I advocated a 2 year wait and watch policy before adopting the procedure for your personal canine. 

And unless you have a valid scientific point, DO NOT call me out, and DO NOT call me names (like FDA Fan). I DO NOT like it.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Woof_Terrorist said:


> I brought FDA in to the topic, because it is the organization which has approved the usage of this product and I believe in it.
> 
> 
> Do you really think your fears were not considered by a team of experienced clinicians who set the ground for clinical trials before approving the drug?
> ...


Just because many of us do not agree with you doesn't mean the thread needs to be closed. This is an awesome forum in which we can all share our opinions even if there are disagreements.
It helps many of us form our opinions about what we feel is right for our dogs.


----------



## PatchonGSD (Jun 27, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

PatchonGSD said:


> opcorn:


May I join you?:toasting:


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Woof terrorist: Sorry my Grandma wisdom is seen as non knowledge by you. Since I have worked for different vets for over 40 years, starting when I was young and have seen many new ideas and studies done and approved by FDA for animals that have gone bad. How about when rabies vaccine was approved by the FDA to be given under the skin instead of the muscle??? Many many animals became ill, had huge seromas form, and it was taken off the market to be given into the muscle only.
How about vaccines that were approved for horses, only to find them having reactions and dying and taken off the market. 
Oh, how about FDA approved drugs for humans that are "wonderful" until the reactions, deaths and health issues pop up and the drug is withdrawn.
FDA makes mistakes also, everyone is human. 
Just because you feel something is not the way you want it, doesn't give you the right to request a thread to be "watched" closely.
I have seen and been through many many vet approved, fda approved meds, vaccines, food, etc that has been recalled or removed due to issues that show up once the general public use is allowed. 
Oh yea, just like you don't like being called names, neither do I. You do not know my amount of wisdom or knowledge, so saying my "grandma wisdom" should not be taken into account is rude and uncalled for, how do you know how much scientific knowledge I do or don't have? How do you know how much vet experience, knowledge and through years and years of working with vets, seeing good and bad ideas/protypes/ reactions, etc. that YOU say should not be acknowledged?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'll take 40 years of Grandma wisdom over 10 years of FDA study anyday.  The problem with drug studies is not the FDA, which is why the conversation about them is ridiculous. The problem is the studies are either pushed thru by the drug companies or the adverse affects show up after the term of the study. 

However, when I started this post, I wanted people's opinion on whether they would do this and why. Not an argument over bureaucracy.

And now back to the regularly scheduled program.....


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Thanks Jax08....................
I agree, not sure why FDA got brought into this or even why....


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

Yeah that kind of threw me for a loop to =/.

And for what it is worth, while there are merits to a person's personal experience and a scientific study, at the end of the day, I'm going to pull more strongly out of the forty years of "grandma wisdom" as well.

Studies are only as good as they are designed, and there are a LOT of poorly designed studies out there, and it seems to me the more I read them the more I see that 90% of them are reported incorrectly, people think they say things that they do not.

So take from that what you will.

Bottom line, someone who has been around tons of different dogs for forty years...their advice means a lot more to me and the kinds of decisions *I* need to make, than a single study done to discover a single narrow set of facts over a six month period.


----------

