Short-term efficacy of epidural pain management in dogs undergoing cystoscopy.
canine
pain
urinary tract
urology
Journal
Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
Titre abrégé: J Vet Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8708660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
01
2021
received:
18
12
2019
accepted:
22
01
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
4
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The effects of epidural anesthesia in dogs undergoing cystoscopy are unknown. To investigate the effect of epidural analgesia on postcystoscopy pain in dogs. Twenty-six dogs undergoing routine cystoscopy for lower urinary tract disease. Prospective, randomized, blinded observational study. Dogs were assigned either to a treatment group that received epidural anesthesia (preservative free morphine sulfate, 0.09 mg/kg; 1% ropivacaine, 0.2 mg/kg; total volume delivered, 1 mL/4.5 kg of body weight to a maximum of 10 mL; n = 9) or to a nonepidural control group (n = 13). Vital signs were monitored for 24 hours, and sedation and pain scores, behavioral assessments, and presence or absence of complications was evaluated for 5 days postprocedure. All dogs tolerated the epidural without complications. Four dogs were removed from the study because of status unblinding, lack of patient cooperation, or incomplete follow-up. No significant differences were noted in postprocedural pain scores in dogs that received epidural analgesia. Significant differences in postprocedural pain scores were noted in the nonepidural control group. No significant differences were noted in vital signs, behavioral assessments, or the proportion of dogs with a 50% increase in pain scores between the epidural and nonepidural groups. Epidural anesthesia was well-tolerated. Dogs not receiving the epidural had poor postprocedural pain control. A consistent benefit for the epidural vs nonepidural group could not be identified. Additional studies are required to better assess the impact and efficacy of epidural anesthesia for cystoscopic procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The effects of epidural anesthesia in dogs undergoing cystoscopy are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of epidural analgesia on postcystoscopy pain in dogs.
ANIMALS
METHODS
Twenty-six dogs undergoing routine cystoscopy for lower urinary tract disease.
METHODS
METHODS
Prospective, randomized, blinded observational study. Dogs were assigned either to a treatment group that received epidural anesthesia (preservative free morphine sulfate, 0.09 mg/kg; 1% ropivacaine, 0.2 mg/kg; total volume delivered, 1 mL/4.5 kg of body weight to a maximum of 10 mL; n = 9) or to a nonepidural control group (n = 13). Vital signs were monitored for 24 hours, and sedation and pain scores, behavioral assessments, and presence or absence of complications was evaluated for 5 days postprocedure.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All dogs tolerated the epidural without complications. Four dogs were removed from the study because of status unblinding, lack of patient cooperation, or incomplete follow-up. No significant differences were noted in postprocedural pain scores in dogs that received epidural analgesia. Significant differences in postprocedural pain scores were noted in the nonepidural control group. No significant differences were noted in vital signs, behavioral assessments, or the proportion of dogs with a 50% increase in pain scores between the epidural and nonepidural groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Epidural anesthesia was well-tolerated. Dogs not receiving the epidural had poor postprocedural pain control. A consistent benefit for the epidural vs nonepidural group could not be identified. Additional studies are required to better assess the impact and efficacy of epidural anesthesia for cystoscopic procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33538030
doi: 10.1111/jvim.16055
pmc: PMC7995430
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Anesthetics, Local
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study, Veterinary
Randomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
980-986Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Références
Pain. 1986 Oct;27(1):117-126
pubmed: 3785962
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1996 May;26(3):441-62
pubmed: 9157646
Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1:S17-24
pubmed: 16320034
J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1997 Aug;20(4):284-9
pubmed: 9280368
Can J Anaesth. 1998 May;45(5 Pt 1):435-42
pubmed: 9598258
ILAR J. 2003;44(3):197-205
pubmed: 12789020
J Vet Intern Med. 2021 Mar;35(2):980-986
pubmed: 33538030
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2011 Sep;38(5):510-5
pubmed: 21831058
Vet Rec. 1990 Apr 28;126(17):415-25
pubmed: 2189256
Front Vet Sci. 2017 May 12;4:68
pubmed: 28553642
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999 Mar 1;214(5):651-9
pubmed: 10088012
Pain. 1981 Apr;10(2):241-248
pubmed: 7267140
Am J Vet Res. 1998 Jan;59(1):10-5
pubmed: 9442235
Anaesthesia. 2019 Mar;74(3):373-379
pubmed: 30648259
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2015 Jul;45(4):665-701
pubmed: 26002795
Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim. 1997 May;12(2):61-74
pubmed: 9159063
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998 Jan 1;212(1):61-6
pubmed: 9426779
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Mar;27(3):196-205
pubmed: 15010098
Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-158
pubmed: 11690728
Pain. 1987 Dec;31(3):277-295
pubmed: 3320882
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2019 Nov;49(6):1095-1108
pubmed: 31492542
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993 May 1;202(9):1485-94
pubmed: 8496107
J Clin Nurs. 2007 Jun;16(6):1118-24
pubmed: 17518886
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2000 Jan;27(1):13-21
pubmed: 28404161