Can detomidine replace medetomidine for pharmacological semen collection in domestic cats?

Abstract

Among the different methods used for semen collection from domestic cats, the pharmacological collection by urethral catheterization becomes disruptive. Medetomidine is the elected α²-adrenoceptor agonist for that, but in several countries, it is not commercially available. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of detomidine compared to medetomidine in collecting semen by urethral catheterization in domestic cats. Urethral catheterization was performed on 13 mongrel cats using a disposable semi-rigid tomcat urinary catheter. Of the 19 semen collections performed with medetomidine induction, 94.7% were successful, while with detomidine induction, only 56.3% of 16 were successful. The values semen samples variables were as follows for volume - 10.56 ± 0.4 vs 8.88 ± 0.5 mL, motility - 171.67 ± 0.79 vs 49.77 ± 3.45%, vigor - 4.1 ± 0.03 vs 3.10 ± 0.1 and concentration - 3.24 ± 0.19 vs 2.15 ± 0.13 ×10⁹ sperm/mL respectively for medetomidine and detomidine group. The failure in semen collections with detomidine was mainly due to azoospermic samples, poor urethral relaxation, insufficient volume, or contamination of urine. The sperm concentration was also lower in the detomidine group (P <0.05) when compared to medetomidine. However, when the volume of semen collected was compared, we found no statistical differences. Despite its low performance in collecting semen from cats, detomidine may be an alternative when medetomidine is not accessible.

Keywords: felids; tomcats; urethral catheterization; α2-adrenoceptor agonist.

Figure 1. Graphical representation of success and failure rates of pharmacological semen collection in cats using medetomidine (n=19) and detomidine (n=16).