Comparison of recovery quality following Medetomidine versus Xylazine balanced isoflurane anaesthesia in horses: a retrospective analysis

Medetomidine partial intravenous anaesthesia (PIVA) has not been compared to xylazine PIVA regarding quality of recovery. This clinical retrospective study compared recoveries following isoflurane anaesthesia balanced with medetomidine or xylazine. The following standard protocol was used: sedation with 7 µg·kg−1 medetomidine or 1.1 mg·kg−1 xylazine, anaesthesia induction with ketamine/diazepam, maintenance with isoflurane and 3.5 µg·kg−1·h−1 medetomidine or 0.7 mg·kg−1·h−1 xylazine, and sedation after anaesthesia with 2 µg·kg−1 medetomidine or 0.3 mg·kg−1 xylazine. Recovery was timed and, using video recordings, numerically scored by two blinded observers. Influence of demographics, procedure, peri-anaesthetic drugs, and intraoperative complications (hypotension, hypoxemia, and tachycardia) on recovery were analysed using regression analysis (p < 0.05). A total of 470 recoveries (medetomidine 279, xylazine 191) were finally included. Following medetomidine, recoveries were significantly longer (median (interquartile range): 57 (43–71) min) than xylazine (43 (32–59) min) (p < 0.001). However, the number of attempts to stand was similar (medetomidine and xylazine: 2 (1–3)). Poorer scores were seen with increased pre-anaesthetic dose of xylazine, intraoperative tetrastarch, or salbutamol. However, use of medetomidine or xylazine did not influence recovery score, concluding that, following medetomidine–isoflurane PIVA, recovery is longer, but of similar quality compared to xylazine

Evaluation of the Analgesic Efficacy of Undiluted Intraperitoneal and Incisional Ropivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Dogs after Major Abdominal Surgery

Recommendations for intraperitoneal (IP) and incisional (INC) administration of local anaesthetics after visceral surgery exist, but evidence is scarce. This prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled, clinical trial compared postoperative pain in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgery. Sixteen client-owned dogs were anaesthetized with a standardized balanced protocol including opioids and received either 2 mg/kg ropivacaine IP (0.27 mL/kg) and a 1 mg/kg INC splash (0.13 mL/kg) or equal volumes of saline. Influence of the treatment on heart rate (HR) and postoperative pain was assessed using the Short Form of the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCPS-SF), a dynamic interactive visual analogue scale (DIVAS) and mechanical nociceptive threshold testing (MNT). Data was tested with mixed ordinal regression and log linear mixed models for 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after extubation. Rescue analgesia was given to 3/8 dogs after ropivacaine and 0/8 dogs after saline. GCPS-SF and MNT were not different between groups. DIVAS was slightly higher after ropivacaine (odds increased by 5.44 (confidence interval (CI) 1.17–9.96, p = 0.012)), and HR after ropivacaine was 0.76 * that after saline (CI 0.61–0.96, p = 0.02) with no effect of time (p = 0.1). Undiluted ropivacaine IP and INC was not beneficial for postoperative analgesia