Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.5 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 55 issue 5 (may 2021) : 568-574

Ultrasonographic and Radiographic Assessment of Prostate Gland in Perineal Hernia Dogs

Ramandeep Singh, Vandana Sangwan, N Umeshwori Devi, Jitender Mohindroo, Devendra Pathak
1Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, College of Veterinary Science, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana-141 004, Punjab, India.
Cite article:- Singh Ramandeep, Sangwan Vandana, Devi Umeshwori N, Mohindroo Jitender, Pathak Devendra (2020). Ultrasonographic and Radiographic Assessment of Prostate Gland in Perineal Hernia Dogs. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 55(5): 568-574. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-3999.
Background: Prostate gland affections are considered as common cause for perineal hernia in intact male dogs. Normal prostate gland is usually less distinct, radiographically; however, when enlarged it alters the anatomical position of rectum and urinary bladder and can be distinguished for its objective assessment. Radiography fails to differentiate the parenchymal abnormalities of prostate however, ultrasonography can. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the involvement of prostate gland using radiography and ultrasonography in perineal hernia affected dogs. 
Methods: Thirty-eight intact male dogs, suffering from perineal hernia and presented during the entire year of 2018, were investigated. Both radiographic (subjective and objective) and ultrasonographic modalities were applied to assess the enlargement of prostate gland. The subjective assessment parameters on radiography (n=38) included the lifting/displacement of rectum from normal position and cranial displacement of urinary bladder. The objective parameters (n=29) included the prostate length and depth measured using inbuilt calliper of computerized radiography system and ultrasonography and comparing it with 70% of the pubic brim to sacral promontory distance. 
Result: The mean prostatic length was significantly more than the prostate depth on both radiography and ultrasonography. There was a significant positive correlation between the radiographic pubic brim to sacral promontory distance and the prostate length and depth measured on both the diagnostic modalities. The subjective assessment of prostate over emphasized the prostate depth and under estimated the prostate length compared to objective measurements on radiography. There was a significant correlation between the prostate lengths measured on radiography and ultrasonography and the lengths were not significantly different on two diagnostic modalities. Objective analysis on radiography revealed the prostate length and or/depth of 54.72% perineal hernia dogs (15/29) to be more than 70% of pubic brim to sacral promontory distance. In conclusion, the prostate affections may not always be the primary aetiology in dogs suffering from perineal hernia and prior investigation of prostate is recommended as a deciding factor for whether castration should be done a few weeks prior to or simultaneously with the perineal herniorrhaphy. The increased length of the prostate is a better indicator of prostatomegaly than the depth. 
  1. Atalan, G., Barr, F.J., Holt, P. E. (1999). Comparison of ultrasound and radiographic measurements of canine prostatic dimensions. Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound. 40(4): 408-412.
  2. Bakalov, D., Govanov, N., Simeonov, R. (2004). Canine paraprostatic cyst - a case report. Journal Veterinarski arhiv. 74 (1): 85-94.
  3. Bellenger, C.R., Canfield, R.B., Slatter, D. (Ed) (2003). Textbook of Small Animal Surgery.3rd ed. Perineal hernia. Saunders Philadelphia. 487-498. 
  4. Black, G.M., Ling, G.V., Nyland, T.G., Baker, T. (1998). Prevalence of prostatic cysts in adult large breed dogs. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 34:177-180.
  5. Feeney, D.A., Johnston, G.R., Klaurner, J.S., Perman, V., Leinger, J.R., Tomlinson, M.J. (1987). Canine prostatic diseases- comparison of radiographic appearance with morphologic and microbiologic findings: 30cases (1981-1985). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 190: 1018-1026.
  6. Hedlund, C.S. (2007). Small Animal Surgery, 3rd ed. Surgery of male reproductive tract. Mosby, St. Louis. 747-754.
  7. Lattimer, J.C. (1986). The prostate. In: Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology, Thrall, DE, (ed) Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders. 444-457.
  8. Liu, X., Xiang, J., Li, K., Wang, R., Yang, Q. (2019). Aerobic exercise regulating expression of ERá and ERâ in prostate to prevent benign prostatic hyperplasia of obesity mice. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 53(5): 583-586.
  9. Merck Sharp. (2019). Dohme Corp. a subsidiary of Merck and Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
  10. Paclikova, K., Kohout, P., Vlasin, M. (2006). Diagnostic possibilities in the management of canine prostatic disorders. Veterinari Medicina. 51(1): 1-13.
  11. Sjollema, B.E., Sluijs, F.J. (1989). Perineal hernia repair in the dog by transposition of the internal obturator muscle. Complications and results in 100 patients. Veterinary Quaterly. 11: 18-23.
  12. Smith, J. (2008). Canine prostatic disease: a review of anatomy, pathology and diagnosis and treatment. Theriogenology. 70: 375-383.
  13. Stone, E.A., Thrall, D.E., Barber, D.L. (1978). Radiographic interpretation of prostatic disease in dog. Journal of American Animal Hospital Association. 14:113-118.
  14. Welsh, E. M., Kirby, B.M., Simpson, J.W., Munro, E. (2000). Surgical Management of Perineal Paraprostatic Cysts in three dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 41: 358-361.

Editorial Board

View all (0)