MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
Journal Article

A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy

2022
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of an injectable protocol using multimodal analgesia with or without opioids in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVH). Thirty-two healthy cats were enrolled in a prospective, blinded, randomized trial after the caregiver's written consent. Cats received a combination of ketamine (4 mg/kg), midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) and dexmedetomidine (40 μg/kg), and either buprenorphine (20 μg/kg) or saline (same volume as buprenorphine) intramuscularly [opioid-sparing (OSA) and opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) groups, respectively]. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine 0.25% (2 mg/kg) and meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg subcutaneously) were administered before OVH. Atipamezole (400 μg/kg intramuscularly) was administered at the end of surgery. Pain and sedation were evaluated using the Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) and a dynamic interactive visual analog scale, respectively. Intravenous buprenorphine was administered as rescue analgesia if FGS scores ≥ 0.39/1. Statistical analysis included repeated measures linear mixed models, Fisher's exact test and Bonferroni adjustments when appropriate ( p < 0.05). Twenty-seven cats were included. The prevalence of rescue analgesia was lower in OSA ( n = 0/13) than in OFA ( n = 5/14) ( p = 0.04). The FGS scores (least square means and 95% CI) were higher in OFA at 1 [2.0 (1.3–2.7)] and 2 h [2.2 (1.5–2.9)] than baseline [0.7 (0.0–1.4)], but not in OSA. Sedation scores were not significantly different between groups. Opioid-free injectable anesthesia was appropriate for some cats using a multimodal approach. However, a single dose of intramuscular buprenorphine eliminated the need for rescue analgesia and assured adequate pain management after OVH in cats.