4.6 Article

Permanent contraception of dogs induced with intratesticular injection of a Zinc Gluconate-based solution

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 1056-1063

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.10.008

关键词

Zinc Gluconate; Sterilization; Contraception; Testis; Semen; Dog

资金

  1. Brazilian Research Council (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of a single intratesticular injection of a Zinc Gluconate-based solution to induce sterility in male dogs. Fifteen pubertal mongrel dogs (8 mo to 4 y old) were assigned to two groups; Control dogs (n = 5) received a single injection of an isotonic saline solution into each testis, whereas Treated dogs (n = 10), were given Testoblock, a proprietary zinc-gluconate (13.1 mg zinc/ml) solution in a physiological vehicle. The volume of saline or Testoblock injected varied from 0.2 to 1.0 ml/testis (based on testis width). Physical examination, testis width, hematology, clinical chemistry (hepatic and renal function), plasma testosterone concentration, semen characteristics, and libido, were assessed until castration (150 d after treatment). In Treated dogs, testis width increased (approximately 20%) relative to that in Control dogs, but subsequently was not significantly different from Controls (group X time interaction, P < 0.0001). For all dogs, values for hematology and clinical chemistry consistently remained within reference ranges. Although plasma testosterone concentrations decreased over time (P < 0.006), there was only a tendency for an effect of group (P < 0.09), and libido was not significantly affected. By 63 d after Testoblock treatment, eight Treated dogs were azoospermic, whereas the remaining two were oligozoospermic (<10 X 10(6) sperm/ml). We concluded that intratesticular injection of the Zinc Gluconate-based chemical sterilant Testoblock has considerable potential to induce permanent contraception in male dogs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据