Exploring the association between canine perineal hernia and neurological, orthopedic, and gastrointestinal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a relatively common condition in intact male dogs, but the etiology remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the contribution of gastrointestinal (GI), neurological, and orthopedic conditions to the development of PH in male dogs. Patient history with a focus on chronic GI disease was assessed using an owner questionnaire. Neurological conditions were explored, applying neurological, electromyographic (EMG), and motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV) examinations and combining these with computed tomography (CT) imaging. To exclude possible orthopedic diseases, an orthopedic examination was conducted together with CT analysis. The chi-squared test was used to assess the associations between categorical variables. RESULTS: Altogether, 66 male dogs with diagnosed PH were recruited for this study. The frequency of neurological, orthopedic, and GI diseases was low in dogs with PH. No signs of generalized neuro- or myopathies were detected. Still, perineal and bulbourethral reflexes were decreased or missing in 44.6% (29/65) and 40.0% (26/65) of dogs, respectively. Mild or moderate occlusion of the intervertebral foramen at the lumbosacral (LS) junction occurred in 18.5% (12/65) of dogs and was caused by spondylosis deformans in 83.3% (10/12). Moderate disc protrusion was evident in 9.2% (6/65) of dogs. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found that PH is caused by gastrointestinal, orthopedic, or neurological conditions. Abnormalities in perineal and bulbourethral reflexes are most likely secondary to PH.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is considered sufficient to preserve an acceptable surgical site infection rate in clean orthopaedic and neurosurgeries in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To lower the incidence of SSI, antimicrobial prophylaxis is given 30-60 min before certain types of surgeries in both human and veterinary patients. However, due to the increasing concern of antimicrobial resistance, the benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis in clean orthopaedic and neurosurgeries warrants investigation. The aims of this retrospective cross-sectional study were to review the rate of SSI and evaluate the compliance with antimicrobial guidelines in dogs at a veterinary teaching hospital in 2012-2016. In addition, possible risk factors for SSI were assessed. RESULTS: Nearly all dogs (377/406; 92.9%) received antimicrobial prophylaxis. Twenty-nine dogs (7.1%) did not receive any antimicrobials and only four (1.1%) received postoperative antimicrobials. The compliance with in-house and national protocols was excellent regarding the choice of prophylactic antimicrobial (cefazolin), but there was room for improvement in the timing of prophylaxis administration. Follow-up data was available for 89.4% (363/406) of the dogs. Mean follow-up time was 464 days (range: 3-2600 days). The overall SSI rate was 6.3%: in orthopaedic surgeries it was 6.7%, and in neurosurgeries it was 4.2%. The lowest SSI rates (0%) were seen in extracapsular repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture, ulnar ostectomy, femoral head and neck excision, arthrotomy and coxofemoral luxation repair. The highest SSI rate (25.0%) was seen in arthrodesis. Omission of antimicrobials did not increase the risk for SSI (P = 0.56; OR 1.7; CI95% 0.4-5.0). Several risk factors for SSI were identified, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius carriage (P = 0.02; OR 9.0; CI95% 1.4-57.9) and higher body temperature (P = 0.03; OR 1.69; CI95% 1.0-2.7; mean difference + 0.4 °C compared to dogs without SSI). CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial prophylaxis without postoperative antimicrobials is sufficient to maintain the overall rate of SSI at a level similar to published data in canine clean orthopedic and neurosurgeries.