MSD has been given approval by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for an injectable version of Bravecto, its parasiticide for dogs, which lasts a whole year.

This new injectable fluralaner formulation is approved for the immediate and persistent killing of fleas for one year (Ctenocephalides felis and Ctenocephalides canis), from 3 days to 12 months after treatment for the ticks Ixodes ricinus, and Dermacentor reticulatus, from 4 days to 12 months after treatment for Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and from 7 days to 12 months after treatment for Ixodes hexagonus.

MSD says it will also reduce the risk of Babesia canis via transmission by Dermacentor reticulatus from day 3 after treatment for up to 12 months, and also reduces the risk of infection with Dipylidium caninum via transmission by Ctenocephalides felis for up to 12 months.

Victoria Miles, UK Companion Animal Business Unit Director, MSD Animal Health said: “Imagine not having to worry about flea and tick protection for a whole year."

Bravecto 150 mg/ml powder and solvent for suspension for injection for dogs can be administered to dogs and puppies six months of age and older.

The product is already available in France and Germany and MSD told VetSurgeon.org that stocks are expected in the UK in September, for which the company is now taking pre-orders.

Contact your MSD Account Manager for further information on pricing.

The eminent equine vet, Dr Sue Dyson FRCVS, has been struck off for a series of dishonest statements and actions, including fabricating a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector, in order to have her research project published in an international publication.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.

After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.

In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.

Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.

On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.

Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.

Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.

After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.

She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.

She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.

In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour. 

Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.

The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.

However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.

However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.

The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”

Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”

The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.

"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.

"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.

"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.

"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.

"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.

“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.

"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."

Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.

Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.

On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.

On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.

After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.

Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.

Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.

Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.

Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.

Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.

The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.

The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.

Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.

However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.

In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.

The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.

Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."

She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."

The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.

At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.

However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.

The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.

"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.

"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."

Carlos Egido Cortes, a Glamorgan-based practitioner, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for possession of four indecent images of children and an extreme pornographic image involving an animal and a female.

Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."

In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."

The RCVS has published a new waiting room poster which details what pet owners and veterinary professionals should expect from each other.

It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses. 

As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.

In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years. 

The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France. 

VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.

On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.

To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster. 

The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.

If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this -  cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause. 

Mars Petcare has created a 'chewing robot' with which to research and test canine dental products.

The robot is used to show how well potential new products or prototypes are performing when it comes to plaque removal.

Built using a scan of a real canine mouth and jaw, the 3D-printed model replicates the normal mastication action of a dog and the pressures it might exert on a dental chew. This, the company says, allows it to test the effectiveness of different product materials and shapes more rapidly and then refine its products at a much earlier stage in the research and development process.

Dr Phil McGenity, Global Pet Oral Care Technical Leader, Mars Petcare said the robot allows them to observe the effects of a dental chew much more easily than in a real dog: "Typically, it’s very difficult to look inside the mouth of a dog while it's chewing, but this robot allows us to assess products more rapidly than we’ve ever been able to in the past. It means we can continually improve the texture and materials in our products."

Mars uses the robot to compare different textures and shapes of products by analysing how much plaque is removed from the robot’s teeth.

Phil said: "We apply a plaque mimic to the surface of the teeth, so we can observe how effectively different prototypes or textures remove this mimic. We take before and after images and, using computer analysis, we can accurately determine what percentage of plaque has been removed.

"This robot has been extremely beneficial for us, to see just how visible the effects of our products, such as DentaStix Daily Oral Care, are."

Veterinary dentist John Robinson said: "One of the key benefits of the chewing robot is it allows a preliminary testing stage before you move into clinical trials. Clinical trials are lengthy and expensive, but the chewing robot means the product can be refined and improved to ensure optimum effectiveness.

"Then you can move into the full clinical trial knowing it has already had extensive texture and plaque removal analysis."

He added: "New research developments such as the chewing robot are vital to improving home dental care in dogs and giving vets the confidence to recommend dental chews to dog owners. Although brushing is regarded as the gold standard, vets need to work more closely with owners to improve homecare via the use of dental products."

Mars Petcare has produced a short report explaining each stage its product development and testing. You can download the report on the WALTHAM website: https://www.waltham.com/waltham-research/oral-health-research/oral-health-r-d/ 

A new poll carried out by YouGov on behalf of Dogs Trust has revealed that in 2022 vet bills were the biggest financial worry for pet owners when it came to looking after their dog. 

The second biggest financial worry was the cost of dog food (18%), followed by pet insurance (16%).

The news came as Dogs Trust announced that it has had 50,000 requests this year from owners asking the charity to take in their dog, a new record in the charity's history.

The outlook for 2023 doesn't look any more optimistic; the poll also found that 62% of people who don’t currently own a dog think the rising cost of living would prevent them from getting one in 2023, whilst 36% said it ‘definitely would’ and 25% said it ‘probably would’.

In the meantime 21% said they would give their dog fewer presents this year, whilst 13% said they won’t give their dogs a present at all this Christmas, despite giving presents in previous years.

Maybe that's a good thing. After all why were they wasting money in the first place: the dog doesn't know it's Christmas, or appreciate a present. 

Perhaps more significantly, fewer dog owners will be going away for a Christmas break this year: 9% said they’d be staying home because they can't afford a dog sitter.

Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, said: “Although it was inevitable that we would reach 50,000 calls from owners no longer able to care for their dogs, it’s still a shock and a stark signifier of the animal welfare crisis the UK now finds itself in.

“Through our December poll, dog owners have told us they’re going to struggle this Christmas, and many more are really worried about what 2023 is going to bring."

The RCVS Council has approved a pathway for veterinary and animal health paraprofessionals to become associates of, or accredited by the College and thereby fall within its regulatory remit.

At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.

The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.

Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.

Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.

"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.

"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."

David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."

Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."

The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses. 

On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."

RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175^th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."

The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/ 

Veterinary cardiologists at Surrey-based North Downs Specialist Referrals (NDSR) have performed what is believed to be the first cutting balloon angioplasty on a cat with double chambered right ventricle.

Sylvie, a four-month-old Maine Coon, was referred to NDSR with a loud heart murmur. Scans revealed she was suffering from a severe obstruction on the right side of her heart which was steadily becoming worse.  

Her condition, double chambered right ventricle, is very rare and, until now, could only be corrected by open heart surgery. However, NDSR specialist cardiologist João Loureiro believed this would be too much of a risk for frail Sylvie, so he opted for a cutting balloon angioplasty which had never been applied to cats before because their hearts are so small. 

He and fellow cardiology specialist Joel Silva carried out the procedure, which involved inserting two balloons on a wire into a vein in Sylvie’s neck and on to her heart. The first had four cutting blades, which were manipulated to score the obstruction before the second was gently inflated in order to relieve it. After the wire and balloons had been removed, the incision in Sylvie’s neck required just two stitches and within 48 hours she was well enough to return home. 

A subsequent scan showed the level of obstruction had been reduced from severe to mild and her owner, Dr Bob Baxter, described her as “much more lively”. 

João, who has a special interest in the treatment of congenital heart disease in small animals, said the decision to perform the interventional ballooning was made because of the risks of open heart surgery and the recent development of veterinary applications of the cutting balloon technique. 

João said: "As Sylvie’s condition was so rare, wider application of the technique is limited in terms of the number of cats which could benefit from it. However, it is extremely relevant to those individuals who are affected and could be of use in the treatment of other, more common, conditions."

Joel said: "Cutting balloon angioplasty is routinely used in human medicine for treating narrowed and stiffened blood vessels and has recently been adapted to treat a heart condition in dogs but we believe this may be the first time it has been used to treat this condition in a cat."

The RVC has published a new study which has revealed several risk factors for canine lipomas, fatty masses which because of their large size and rapid growth often cause extreme and long-term anxiety to the owners of affected dogs.

The College says that until now, veterinary research has largely ignored lipomas because they are rarely referred for specialist treatment.

For the study, the RVC identified 2765 lipoma cases from a population of 384,284 dogs in its VetCompass Programme (which collects anonymised clinical data on dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK) in 2013. 

The study found that 1 in 50 dogs are affected by lipomas each year and that Springer Spaniels, Dobermann Pinschers, Weimaraners and Labrador Retrievers are the most susceptible to lipomas (5-8% prevalence).

The study also found:

• At least one lipoma was diagnosed in 1.94% of dogs during the single year of the study.

• Individual dogs with an adult bodyweight that was equal or higher than their breed/sex average had 1.96 times the odds of lipoma.

• As dogs age, their odds of getting lipoma increase. Dogs aged between 9-12 years were over 17 times more likely to be diagnosed with lipoma compared to dogs aged 3-6 years old.

• Neutered dogs had higher risk.

• Insured dogs had 1.78 times the odds of diagnosis. 

• Purebred dogs had 1.16 times the odds compared with crossbred dogs. 

Dr Lynda Rutherford, Clinician and Lecturer in Small Animal Surgery at the RVC, said: "This paper has supported the theory that lipomas are more common in older, overweight dogs.

"This information is useful as it can be discussed with owners and used as another reason to keep pet dog’s weight under control. It also provides a useful insight into how common lipomas are within the UK dog population."

Reference

• O'NEILL, D. G., CORAH, C. H., CHURCH, D. B., BRODBELT, D. C. & RUTHERFORD, L. 2018. Lipoma in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK: prevalence and breed associations. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, 5, 9. https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-018-0065-9 

Kruuse has announced that it has become the exclusive distributor for VideoMed GmbH and its range of veterinary endoscopes and documentation systems.

VideoMed produces a range of equine and small animal endoscopes, gastroscopes and laryngoscopes that multifunction with a flexible documentation console. This provides a mobile capability to file, frame and forward digital and dicom images for review and referral diagnosis.

According to Kruuse, VideoMed products are synonymous with the very highest quality of design, function and reliability that have been developed through years of close working relationship with veterinary professionals. An after care and repair service is also provided by the company for its own and a range of other scopes.

Kruuse says the Overground scope gives a mobile, high resolution, recordable image that clearly determines functional and morphological abnormalities of the larynx, pharynx and upper respiratory system (see image right).

Andrew Groom, Managing Director, Kruuse UK Ltd., said: "This exciting agreement will further enhance our equine and small animal presence within the veterinary industry to bring even more leading edge technology to our customers."

For more information, visit www.kruuse.com and http://www.videomed-gmbh.de/

Picture courtesy of:
Neil Townsend MSc BVSc Cert ES (Soft Tissue) DipECVS MRCVS
Clinician in Equine Soft Tissue Surgery
Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital