BackgroundTumescent anaesthesia (TA) is a widely used technique in oncologic surgeries necessitating large resection margins. This technique produces transoperative and postoperative analgesia, reduces surgical bleeding, and facilitates tissue divulsion. This prospective, randomised, blind study evaluated the use of TA in bitches submitted to mastectomy and compared the effect of TA with an intravenous fentanyl bolus. A 2.5-mcg/kg intravenous fentanyl bolus (n = 10) was compared with TA using 0.275% lidocaine (n = 10) in bitches submitted to unilateral mastectomy. Sedation was performed by intramuscular (IM) injection of 0.05 mg/kg of acepromazine combined with 2 mg/kg of meperidine. Anaesthesia was induced with 5 mg/kg of intravenous propofol and maintained with isoflurane/O2. Heart and respiratory rates; systolic, mean, and diastolic arterial blood pressures; central venous pressure; SpO2; ETCO2; inspired and expired isoflurane concentrations; and temperature were measured transoperatively. Visual analogue scales for sedation and pain and the Glasgow composite and Melbourne pain scales were used for postoperative assessment. The surgeon investigated the quality of the surgical approach, considering bleeding and resection ability, and the incidence of postoperative wound complications.ResultsThe heart rate was lower and the end-tidal isoflurane concentration was higher in dogs treated with fentanyl than in dogs treated with TA. A fentanyl bolus was administered to 8 of 10 dogs treated with fentanyl and to none treated with TA. Intraoperative bleeding and the mammary gland excision time were lower in dogs treated with TA. The maximal mean and individual plasma lidocaine concentrations were 1426 ± 502 ng/ml and 2443 ng/ml at 90 minutes after infiltration, respectively. The Glasgow Composite Pain Scale scores were higher in dogs treated with fentanyl than in dogs treated with TA until 2 hours after extubation.ConclusionsCompared with intravenous fentanyl, TA in bitches: may be easily performed in non-inflamed, ulcerated, adhered mammary tumours; has an isoflurane-sparing effect; improves transoperative and immediate postoperative analgesia; is apparently safe for use in clinical conditions as evidenced by the fact that it did not produce any adverse signs or lidocaine plasma concentrations compatible with toxicity; does not modify the recovery time; and facilitates the surgical procedure without interfering with wound healing.
Epidural anesthesia minimizes perioperative pain in dogs. It is considered that epidural solution dispersion in cadavers is similar to alive dogs. The objective of the anatomical study was to compare the dispersion of 0.2 mL/kg 0.25% bupivacaine and iohexol via lumbar epidural (L1-L2) under fluoroscopic guidance in 10 thawed cadavers (GC) and 13 female dogs (G0.25) (5-15 kg; body score 4/5). The objective of the clinical study was to evaluate postoperative analgesic consumption and sedation for 6 h after extubation of dogs submitted to ovariohysterectomy when using 0.25% (G0.25; n = 10) bupivacaine with the intraoperative use of fentanyl (GF; n = 10). Parametric data were compared by the t-test and non-parametric data by the Mann Whitney test. Pain and sedation scores were evaluated over time by the Friedman test, followed by the Dunn test. Alive dogs presented greater epidural dispersion (17 ± 3 vertebrae) than thawed cadavers (11 ± 4 vertebrae; p = 0.002). All dogs treated with fentanyl and only one dog treated with 0.25% epidural bupivacaine presented pain scores above the cutoff point of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale Short-Form (GCMPS-SF) and required postoperative rescue analgesia up to 6 h after extubation. The sedation score was higher at all postoperative moments compared to preoperative moments in the G0.25 and GF, except for evaluations performed at 5 and 6 h after extubation in the GF. Greater sedation was observed immediately after extubation in the GF compared to the G0.25, and there was greater sedation in the G0.25 compared to the GF from 3 to 6 h after extubation. The conclusion of the anatomical study was that L1-L2 epidural bupivacaine dispersion is lower in canine thawed cadavers than in alive dogs. Conclusion of the clinical study was that lumbar epidural anesthesia improved postoperative analgesia and produced longer postoperative sedation when compared to fentanyl.
As particularidades anatômicas inerentes a espécie equina predispõem a mesma a síndrome cólica, sendo, predominantemente, seu tratamento cirúrgico. Esta situação impõe alguns desafios, pois o paciente se apresenta hemodinamicamente instável e com alto grau de sensibilidade álgica, tendo normalmente a equipe cirúrgico-anestésica pouco tempo para estabilização e tomada de decisão cirúrgica. Anestésicos inalatórios, como isofluorano, são fármacos amplamente utilizados em anestesia equina, no entanto, podem agravar o quadro hemodinâmico do paciente de maneira dose-dependente, sendo de extrema importância a inserção de anestesia multimodal no protocolo farmacológico, o que deve minimizar efeitos colaterais, otimizando a anestesia e a analgesia no período peri-operatório. Dentre os fármacos utilizados na anestesia balanceada de equinos, infusões contínuas de analgésicos e sedativos têm se mostrado úteis e eficazes nesta espécie. O cloridrato de lidocaína sob a forma de infusão contínua intravenosa apresenta efeito analgésico sistêmico, reduzindo de maneira intensa o requerimento de anestésicos gerais inalatórios, contribuindo também com seu efeito pró-cinético, melhorando o prognóstico em patologias do trato gastrointestinal. A presente revisão tem por objetivo descrever a literatura atual sobre a utilização do cloridrato de lidocaína por meio de infusão contínua intravenosa na espécie equina como parte de anestesia multimodal em procedimentos cirúrgicos para correção de síndrome cólica.
O bloqueio da bainha do músculo reto abdominal se da pela aplicaçãode um anestésico local entre as fibras do músculo reto abdominal e a fáscia ventral do mesmo,visando fornecer analgesia para cirurgias em região abdominal. Tendo em vista que a técnica do bloqueio da fáscia do músculo reto abdominal não é difundida em medicina veterinária, o presente trabalho planeja comparar a dispersão do azul de metileno, representando hipoteticamente a bupivacaína na musculatura e nos nervos da parede abdominal de cadáveres de cães com a dispersão do anestésico local em animal vivo. O estudo foi realizado primeiro em cadáver para posteriormente ser testado na rotina clínica. Na primeira etapa foram utilizados dois cadáveres de cães adultos machos, da raça Cocker Spaniel, provenientes do laboratório de anatomia veterinária do Centro Universitário São Judas Tadeu – Campus Unimonte, corando-se separadamente os dois lados do músculo reto abdominal de cada cão com solução de azul de metileno e água para injeção na proporção de 1:4, respectivamente, nos volumes totais de 10mL para o primeiro cadáver e 12mL para o segundo, em cada hemeabdômen. A segunda etapa foi realizada em um cão adulto macho, da raça Shih-Tzu, proveniente de uma clínica particular em Santos – SP, submetido a correção cirúrgica de hérnia umbilical, utilizando 10mL (2mg/kg) de Cloridrato de Bupivacaína 0,25% em cada lado do abdômen. Ambas as soluções, tanto a solução de azul de metileno quanto a de anestésico local, obtiveram resultados semelhantes, atingindo os nervos intercostais (T10, T11 e T12), costoabdominal (T13), ílio-hipogástrico cranial (L1), ílio-hipogástrico caudal (L2), ílioinguinal (L3) e cutâneo femoral lateral (L4), bilateralmente. Com base nos resultados, sugere-se que esta técnica possa ser utilizada para analgesia de região mediana da parede abdominal em procedimentos em região abdominal cranial, abdominal média e abdominal caudal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.