{"title":"大结肠切除或结肠切除术后纯种母马的繁殖成功率。","authors":"Anja R Knudsen, Joseph S Marsh, Jannah L Pye","doi":"10.1111/vsu.14304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe reproductive performance in Thoroughbred broodmares post-large colon resection and to compare to performance post-colopexy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A single-institution retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>A total of 29 client-owned horses: post-large colon resection (LCR) n = 19, post-colopexy: n = 10.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thoroughbred broodmares that survived until discharge following LCR (Group R) or colopexy (Group P) between 2006 and 2023 were included. Clinical data were collected from clinical records. Breeding and foaling data were collected from the Australian and New Zealand Studbooks. Statistical analysis were performed using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact test using R software. Descriptive and postoperative reproductive data were compared between groups and a calculated nationwide average.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in any evaluated measurements of reproductive success between groups. In Group R, the first breeding season post-resection appeared less successful than the second (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.026-0.98]) or third (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.018-0.93]); however, these differences were not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (adjusted significance threshold p < .0083) and were not observed when unserved mares were excluded. Both groups achieved similar live foal/mare served percentages when compared to Racing Australia's published data (Group R: 60.5%, Group P: 68.2%, Racing Australia: 64.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No difference in reproductive success post-surgery was noted between techniques. Reproductive success is achievable post-large colon resection.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Postoperative reproductive success should not be a factor in intraoperative decision-making when determining which preventative strategy (LCR or colopexy) is utilized. Further larger studies are required to confirm these findings and investigate possible initial reduction in reproductive success post-LCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":23667,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproductive success in Thoroughbred broodmares post large colon resection or colopexy.\",\"authors\":\"Anja R Knudsen, Joseph S Marsh, Jannah L Pye\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vsu.14304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe reproductive performance in Thoroughbred broodmares post-large colon resection and to compare to performance post-colopexy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A single-institution retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>A total of 29 client-owned horses: post-large colon resection (LCR) n = 19, post-colopexy: n = 10.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thoroughbred broodmares that survived until discharge following LCR (Group R) or colopexy (Group P) between 2006 and 2023 were included. Clinical data were collected from clinical records. Breeding and foaling data were collected from the Australian and New Zealand Studbooks. Statistical analysis were performed using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact test using R software. Descriptive and postoperative reproductive data were compared between groups and a calculated nationwide average.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in any evaluated measurements of reproductive success between groups. In Group R, the first breeding season post-resection appeared less successful than the second (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.026-0.98]) or third (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.018-0.93]); however, these differences were not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (adjusted significance threshold p < .0083) and were not observed when unserved mares were excluded. Both groups achieved similar live foal/mare served percentages when compared to Racing Australia's published data (Group R: 60.5%, Group P: 68.2%, Racing Australia: 64.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No difference in reproductive success post-surgery was noted between techniques. Reproductive success is achievable post-large colon resection.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Postoperative reproductive success should not be a factor in intraoperative decision-making when determining which preventative strategy (LCR or colopexy) is utilized. Further larger studies are required to confirm these findings and investigate possible initial reduction in reproductive success post-LCR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14304\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14304","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reproductive success in Thoroughbred broodmares post large colon resection or colopexy.
Objective: To describe reproductive performance in Thoroughbred broodmares post-large colon resection and to compare to performance post-colopexy.
Study design: A single-institution retrospective study.
Animals: A total of 29 client-owned horses: post-large colon resection (LCR) n = 19, post-colopexy: n = 10.
Methods: Thoroughbred broodmares that survived until discharge following LCR (Group R) or colopexy (Group P) between 2006 and 2023 were included. Clinical data were collected from clinical records. Breeding and foaling data were collected from the Australian and New Zealand Studbooks. Statistical analysis were performed using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact test using R software. Descriptive and postoperative reproductive data were compared between groups and a calculated nationwide average.
Results: There were no differences in any evaluated measurements of reproductive success between groups. In Group R, the first breeding season post-resection appeared less successful than the second (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.026-0.98]) or third (p = .03 [95% CI: 0.018-0.93]); however, these differences were not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (adjusted significance threshold p < .0083) and were not observed when unserved mares were excluded. Both groups achieved similar live foal/mare served percentages when compared to Racing Australia's published data (Group R: 60.5%, Group P: 68.2%, Racing Australia: 64.3%).
Conclusion: No difference in reproductive success post-surgery was noted between techniques. Reproductive success is achievable post-large colon resection.
Clinical significance: Postoperative reproductive success should not be a factor in intraoperative decision-making when determining which preventative strategy (LCR or colopexy) is utilized. Further larger studies are required to confirm these findings and investigate possible initial reduction in reproductive success post-LCR.
期刊介绍:
Veterinary Surgery, the official publication of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and European College of Veterinary Surgeons, is a source of up-to-date coverage of surgical and anesthetic management of animals, addressing significant problems in veterinary surgery with relevant case histories and observations.
It contains original, peer-reviewed articles that cover developments in veterinary surgery, and presents the most current review of the field, with timely articles on surgical techniques, diagnostic aims, care of infections, and advances in knowledge of metabolism as it affects the surgical patient. The journal places new developments in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary to help better understand and evaluate the surgical patient.