5 star vetting & sarcoids?

D

davisn

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 September 2007
Messages
251
Location
Between the sea & Snowdon
Visit site
Would you expect a 5 star vetting to identify sarcoids?

I bought a horse from a horse sales a few months ago. I paid to have the basic vetting done on site, which she passed. Once I got her home I had a 5 star vetting done by my vet, within the 2 working day deadline which was a condition of the sales. Again she passed with no problems.

The sales vet noticed a couple of skin pigmentation spots between her back legs, but assured me that they were npot sarcoids. My vet also was not concerned by these at the time of the vetting.

A few days later, during our 'getting to know each other' phase I noticed a warty lump on her lower lip. I can not swear that it was present at the time I bought her, but i expect it was. Anyway, I wasn't too concerned, thinking it was just a natural defect as it looked very much like the ones between her back legs. I have been monitoring it since the, it hasn't changed at all in size or shape.

I have never had any experience of sarcoids so probably wouldn't recognise one if I saw it.

However, just had the vet out for something else, so got him to have a quick look & he says it is a sarcoid. He also now thinks ones between her back legs look suspious.

Should I have expected the other vettings to have picked this up?
 
Unless they were likely to affect the horse or its ability to do the job you bought it for I wouldnt automatically assume the vet would comment on them. The vetting is now more to do with the horses suitability for your purpose than just a health check.
 
When I had a vetting done, the horse has sarcoids under his tail, these were pointed out to me and he told me his opinion on them.
I'm sorry but If sarcoids were present at the time of vetting I would expect the vet to comment on them even if they were not going to affect its performance.
A vetting is yes suitability to the requirements but also a snap shot of the health that day.Its like flexion tests yes they can fail but would still be ok for the intended use, but it should still be highlighted. But not every vet works in the same way/
 
This may or may not help!


"
Jeremy Mantell, Chairman of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s working party on the review of the pre-purchase examination (PPE) of horses explains the current situation.

The veterinary examination of horses prior to purchase was first formalised in 1976 by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons who issued a joint memorandum, subsequently revised in 1985. This introduced the idea of the five stage clinical examination and subsequent report and laid down a protocol of minimum requirements for such an examination. By and large this technique has stood the test of time well but in 1999 BEVA, with the encouragement of the Royal College and of the Veterinary Defence Society, formed a small working party to review the procedure and to make recommendations for any changes, if required.

Veterinary surgeons have been advising on the suitability of horses for purchase for generations and it is to the credit of our forefathers and of the profession at large that the phrase “to vet” has entered common usage to indicate a thorough examination of a subject. One can only speculate how the phrase “to doctor” came about.

Since 1976 certain techniques involved in the clinical examination of horses have changed as have the availability of the various diagnostic aids. Perhaps as importantly the expectations of the horse owning public have also changed as have their level of experience and expertise.

Initially the working party invited comment from members of the profession both through BEVA’s own publications and through the Veterinary Record. Additionally, and perhaps uniquely, we also invited comment from the horse owning population by a letter to Horse & Hound. Sadly, this elicited very few responses (perhaps they are generally very satisfied with the system?) and the one that sticks in my mind is the letter from a dealer in Devon who complained that “it was insulting that vets should examine her horses as she only sold ex-racehorses which by definition are able to gallop soundly”. By and large the profession responded that the system still worked surprisingly well several decades on and, in general, “if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it”. The working party agreed with those views but also felt that there is some scope for fine-tuning.

Most of the problems and claims associated with the pre-purchase examination of horses come down to communication, or lack of it. No article on the vetting procedure would be complete without reiterating the vital importance of discussing the purchaser’s requirements fully both before and after the examination. It is an essential theme of the examination that it is designed to advise the potential purchaser of the suitability of that particular horse for their chosen use as it stands on that day. We are not any longer advising about its general “soundness” for any role.

The aim of the pre-purchase examination was defined in BEVA’s Manual of The PPE in 1998 and it is reiterated here without apology. “The aim of the PPE is to carry out a thorough and complete veterinary examination of the chosen horse and to identify and attempt to assess those factors of a veterinary nature that may affect the horse’s suitability for its intended use, so that the prospective purchaser may make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed with their chosen purchase”.

The manual is a particularly useful guide to the various aspects of the examination being made up of the series of chapters by experienced practitioners discussing everything from radiography to the respiratory system. In the U.K. the vetting procedure is still very much a full and thorough clinical examination upon which the attending vet bases his opinion. Unlike some other countries where a checklist format is used and the purchaser is encouraged to draw his own conclusions, the British approach has always been that the client deserves the considered opinion of the examining veterinary surgeon based on his knowledge, expertise and experience. This was one of the considerations in the review but we have come to the conclusion that the opinion remains a fundamental tenet of the vetting procedure in this country. Whilst there may be some benefit in a check list type format the opinion of the working party at the moment is that it is best used as an aide memoire to formulate the procedure rather than the report.

Other issues that have had to be considered in view of progress in their field are radiography and other ancillary aids, warranties and previous medical histories, blood and other laboratory tests, flexion tests and lunging on a hard surface in a small diameter circle.

At the present time warranties are a matter between the vendor and the purchaser and outwith the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon. However, an argument has been made that the examining vet should at least bring to the attention of the purchaser and encourage the vendor to provide certain warranties and we are currently looking at the viability of a standardised warranty form being available to run adjacent to the prepurchase examination. This could, for example, provide information about vices, allergies, and temperament, etc as well as previous medical and surgical history.

The use of radiography, ultrasound, endoscopy or other ancillary aids will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the individual horse. As a general rule these should be used only as an aid to diagnosis rather than as a screening procedure and it is the opinion of the working party that these are more suitable as “add ons” rather than as a standard part of the procedure. Purchasers and indeed insurance companies should be aware that radiography, in particular, may result in more questions being asked than answered.

The value of a pre-exercise blood sample tested for routine haematology and biochemistry as a screening technique is, we believe, best left to the judgement of the attending vet. However, the working party believes strongly that the taking of a blood sample for subsequent medication analysis is to be encouraged; this acts both as a deterrent and as a fail safe mechanism should things go wrong. The scheme currently organised by the Veterinary Defence Society is commended.

The questions of flexion tests and of small diameter lunging on the hard elicit strong responses on both sides of the debate. After much consultation the working party have come to the conclusion that the best way forward is to encourage these techniques but certainly not to make them mandatory. There will be many occasions due to, e.g. the age of the horse, the competence of the handler, or the suitability of environment where these techniques are inappropriate and indeed could even be dangerous. However, we believe that they should be considered and specifically rejected in the circumstances rather than being mandatory. The over-riding principle when using these techniques should be more to exacerbate or confirm a suspicion of abnormality that has already been detected rather than solely to act as a screening technique in an otherwise normal horse. That said there will inevitably be variations in the degree of acceptable normality with these techniques depending on the age and type of horse involved and it will be up to the attending vet to make a balanced judgement on their acceptability rather than to take an all or nothing view. Again, as a general rule an asymmetric response on either side of the body is likely to be more significant than minor variations which are symmetrical.

There is now a body of opinion that says that the PPE should provide the purchaser with an opinion on three aspects of the horse. Whilst the primary role of the pre-purchase examination is to advise the potential purchaser as to the suitability of their chosen horse, the examining veterinary surgeon should also be aware of two other aspects on which they should base their advice. These are the horse’s suitability for insurance, bearing in mind that horses that may be suitable for a specific purpose may not necessarily be suitable for insurance purposes and the affect that any abnormality that is noted may have on subsequent resale. We would urge colleagues to be aware of the increasingly conservative approach of equine insurance underwriters and would advise that the purchaser be told, if any abnormality has been noted, to agree to buy the horse subject to obtaining satisfactory insurance cover before they purchase the horse.

The working party has also considered the limited examination, also known as the two stage vetting. Although these have been around in various formats for many years it is only recently that the VDS have approved of them, provided that the potential purchaser is made aware of the limitations in advance and signs a disclaimer. These limited pre-purchase examinations do have a place but we advise caution in their use, more especially if the criteria for commissioning such a limited examination are mainly financial. There is an argument that says these are more suitable for the experienced and professional type horse owners rather than the inexperienced. An inexperienced owner on a tight budget, buying a “cheap” horse is almost invariably better advised to spend their money on a full veterinary examination to determine all the factors that may or may not affect their choice. So often such “cheap” horses carry a multitude of conditions and injuries, hence their financial value and it is just those horses that benefit more from a complete and thorough check. Similarly, young and inexperienced veterinary surgeons may be best advised to approach such “cheap” horses with caution as the balanced opinion of the relative merits of their problems may require a greater level of understanding, experience and expertise.

The working party also considered whether or not any restriction should be placed on who actually carries out such an examination. Although accepting there was an argument for this we felt that such decisions were best left to the individual circumstances and the practices involved. It goes without saying though that any veterinary surgeon embarking on such a pre-purchase examination should feel reasonably confident and competent with regards to equine experience and their ability to make a balanced judgement on any abnormalities found. Those with as yet limited experience are advised to continue gaining experience, to read the BEVA manual and to enrol on the BEVA/Fort Dodge pre-purchase examination training day.

It is anticipated that the formal review of the pre-purchase examination will be completed soon and they will be published before BEVA’s annual Congress which is to be held this year in Birmingham from 10-13 September 2003. Further details are available from BEVA at 5 Finlay Street, London SW6 6HE, (www.beva.org.uk)"

Reproduced by kind permission of The Editor of The Veterinary Review
 
We had a horse vetted last year, and the vet found a bump which he thought possibly 'suspicous'. The seller said the bump had always been there and never changed - she's never even considered it might be a sarcoid.

The vet put the 'suspect' lump in his report, and advised us not to buy! However, we really liked the horse so went ahead with the purchase. However, the insurance company insisted on excluding sarcoids from the policy. So we drew up a contract to say that if the lump developed with in 6 months, the seller would pay all vet treament required.

The lump didn't evolve, but if it does anytime in the future we won't be covered. So..... if you would have bought the horse anyway, you're lucky it wasn't picked up, as at least your insurance will cover any treatment.

If however, you would not have wanted the horse with 'suspicious' lumps, then i'd say you do have recourse with the vet. A 5 stage vetting is not cheap, considering it takes such minimal time. If it is a problem which can affect insurance, it is a risk, and I think a vet should pick it up. After all, how hard can it be to feel for lumps and bumps?!
 
yes, i'd expect it to be noticed in a 5-star vetting.
i had a 5-star vetting done on my new mare, the vet even mentioned in the phone call just after he'd finished, that she has a tiny lump at the tip of one ear - this is invisible, detectable only by palpation. i'm positive it's a Deer Fly bite (thanks to Tia, i now know that that's what i've got around here, and my youngsters had similar bites last year). my point is, he must have gone all over her with fingertip touch, quite literally from the tips of her ears...
however, sarcoids wouldn't necessarily put me off. depends on position and type of them, obv.
 
I would want (and have requested) the horse to be checked especially for possible sarcoids and if present would think very carefully about buying a horse with them. This is simply because I have seen what they can turn into, and have had friends lose horse to them. I get very attached to my horses and the treatment can be very expensive and there's no guarantee of success
frown.gif
 
my horse was vetted as a 4yr old - 5 stage vetting and his sarcoids were found and he has had the exemption on his insurance ever since.

they have not got bigger in the 6yrs i have had him and have never bothered him at all.

at least with them not being found on the vetting you could get them treated on your insurance if you wanted to.
 
Thanks for your replies everyone.

I'm not trying to 'blame' anyone, I was just surprised that it wasn't picked up in the vetting & flagged to me.

If I'm honest I may not have bought her if I had known at the time, but it's difficult to say, as now, a few months on, I wouldn't part with her. She is great in so many ways & has been really good for me. She is a very willing girl, who has a great cheeky character, but listens most of the time & trys very hard.

I probably wouldn't have paid as much as I did for her had I known, but I guess she is worth the money to me & I don't plan to sell her anytime soon, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Her sarcoids are of the flat, rough skin variety. She has one about the size of a ten pence piece on her lower lip, just before the curb, so her flash doesn't quite touch it at the moment, but will do if it gets any bigger. She also has 3 tiny ones between her back legs.

The vet isn't sure whether to treat the one on her face yet, he is going to think about & we will discuss it together. They don't bother her in the slightest. I'm in 2 minds really. I'm tempted to leave alone unless they start to change. I've heard that if you treat them you can infact make them worse. What do you think?
 
Yes I would expect a vet to pick it up!! Mainly because they are something that can cause problems later if the get bigger... some will never change but some can get bigger and also can be nasties!!
I have heard of a number of vets being sued for not picking up sarcoids on a vetting... I'm not saying sue the vet though!!

After the vetting experiences I've had I'm very dubious about the value of any vetting certificate anyway...Some vets will give a certificate for anything and some are so paranoid about being sued they won't pass anything!!

When I bought my first, I had him vetted, he had a bump on the outside of his front leg with a small scar over it, definitely not a splint as too low, just an old injury commented on in the vetting but he passed for low level eventing. I never had any problems with lameness in the 2years I had him. During which time he was competed at RC and BE and hunted.

When I sold him 2 years later a lady wanted him for RC possibly upto PN eventing and had him vetted.
Firstly the vet took nearly one week from the vetting to decide whether he had passed or failed!! - Surely that isn't right??
Then failed him on potential for resale at that level.... apparently that was because if the buyer was to sell him again someone might think the bump was a splint and might not buy because of it... even though she said it wasn't a splint!
I was under the impression the vetting was to determine the horse was in good health and fit to do the job!!

Also a friend of mine had his horse fail a vetting as the vet said he was blind in one eye from a cateract... he got a specialist eye vet to see the horse who said he had a superficial scratch to the eye which was healing well!!
 
I would have expected this to have come up in the vetting, however i sold a horse 3 years ago and when i brought him had him vetting and was tol that he was a head shaker. I had him for 4 years and then had ot put him up for sale and 2 potential buyers came up and had him vetted and both vets pulled him up on completely different things with no mention of the others and of the headshaking.

I dont have much faith in vetting now...
 
Hi,
I asked my Husband, who is a Vet, whilst carrying out a 5 stage vetting he came across a sarcoid would he note it on the certificate, his reply 'absolutely'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top