Insertion of an intrauterine catheter for post-cervical artificial insemination in gilts: a case report

Abstract

The aim of this case report was to characterize the insertion of an intrauterine catheter (IC) in gilts to perform post-cervical artificial insemination (PCAI). Attempts to insert ICs through the cervixes of gilts were performed using either a standard sow foam tip catheter (SFC; n = 25) or a standard gilt foam tip catheter (GFC; n = 25). The percentage of passage, depth and degree of difficulty for insertion were evaluated. The average depth of IC insertion was 10.1 ± 1.3 cm for SFC and 10.0 ± 1.2 cm for GFC. For both catheters, insertion depths of greater than 10 cm were achieved in the first insemination in 44% of gilts. Insertion depths of greater than 6 cm were observed in 72% and 60% of attempts using SFC and GFC, respectively. A high level of difficulty for IC insertion was observed, mainly while using GFC. In conclusion, the routine application of PCAI in gilts on swine farms remains limited by the low success rate for intrauterine catheter insertion. In further studies, we suggest evaluating reproductive performance using low insertion depths for PCAI in gilts, and assessing the use of sow foam tip catheter as a guide to introduce the IC.

Update on artificial insemination: Semen, techniques, and sow fertility

“…Furthermore, parity 1 sows had a compromised response to ovulation induction, reducing the farrowing rate compared to other parities (Knox, Esparza‐Harris, et al, 2017). Other factors associated with a reduction in the reproductive performance of the FTAI were the follicle maturity at the time of ovulation induction and the interval from insemination to ovulation (Knox, Esparza‐Harris, et al, 2017; Ulguim et al, 2018).…”

“…Concerning reproductive performance, no differences between CAI and IUAI in gilts were observed in studies, despite the differences between the protocols (Will, Mellagi, et al, 2021). However, the intrauterine cannula insertion rate varies among studies, ranging from 44% (Ulguim et al, 2018) to 91.4% (Ternus et al, 2017). These variations may be due to differences in the definition of IUAI success rate, the insemination devices (catheters and cannulas), and the anatomical characteristics of the gilts.…”