ArticleVeterinary research communications2025
Comparison of outcomes between laparotomic and laparoscopic elective ovariectomy in anestrus dogs: postoperative recovery, pain and inflammatory biomarkers.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Topical Administration of Bupivacaine HCl to the Ovarian Pedicle on Postoperative Pain, Antioxidant Enzyme Activity and Inflammatory Cytokines in Dogs Undergoing Laparoscopic Ovariectomy.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Oxidative Stress, Cortisol, Inflammatory Response, and Systemic COAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the outcomes of laparoscopic ovariectomy (LOVE) and open ovariectomy (OVE) in dogs, assessing pain, quality of recovery, and systemic inflammatory biomarkers. STUDY
designA prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Twenty anestrous female dogs, ten for each group.
methodsThe parameters compared between the two groups were: incision length, surgical time, pain, along with concentrations of serum amyloid A (SAA), C-reactive protein (CRP), and substance P (SP), measuring one hour before surgery (T0), two hours (T1), 24 h (T2), and seven days post-surgery (T3); quality of recovery (QoR-15) at T0, T2 and T3.
resultsLOVE results in a longer surgery time, while a shorter incision length. CRP was higher (P < 0.05) at T1 but lower (P < 0.001) at T2 and T3 in LOVE than in OVE group. At T1 and T2 lower SAA concentrations were found in OVE groups compared to LOVE group (P < 0.001); and at T3, SP was higher (P < 0.05) in the OVE group compared to the LOVE group. Pain at T1 and T2, and QoR-15 at T2 and T3, showed better scores (P < 0.01) in LOVE compared to OVE group.
conclusionThis study showed that laparoscopic ovariectomy resulted in moderate surgical trauma and postoperative pain, reducing the time for recovery compared to a laparotomic procedure. Serum concentrations of CRP and SP, predictive biomarkers of postoperative systemic inflammation, confirm a greater inflammatory response in the LOVE group, which may explain the prolonged recovery times observed in these group. Our results indicate that SAA is not a reliable marker of mild surgical stress, whereas CRP remains a valid indicator of postoperative inflammation in canine ovariectomy. SP showed promising consistency with the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale, supporting its potential as a biomarker for perioperative pain. Preliminary findings also suggest the feasibility of using the adapted QoR-15 scale in dogs. Overall, laparoscopic ovariectomy confirmed clear advantages over open laparotomy, including reduced inflammation, lower pain levels, and faster recovery. Further studies with larger cohorts and long-term follow-up are needed to validate these tools and assess the broader welfare implications of different surgical approaches. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study supports the advantages of laparoscopic techniques for ovariectomy, particularly in terms of the patient's recovery quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41296213What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.