A survey of dog and cat anaesthesia in a sample of veterinary practices in New Zealand

<p>AIMS: To survey current anaesthesia practices for dogs and cats in small and mixed animal practices in New Zealand in order to improve anaesthesia education.</p> <p>METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 440 small and mixed animal practices, including questions regarding the type of practice, preanaesthetic examination, anaesthetic drugs and management, anaesthetic machines, monitoring and topics of interest for continuing professional development.</p> <p>RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 113/440 (26%) practices, with 78 (69%) respondents from small and 35 (31%) from mixed animal practices. A preanaesthetic physical examination was carried out by >95% of respondents and premedication was usually given to dogs (112/113; 99%) and cats (95/113; 85%). Acepromazine was the preferred sedative for dogs and cats, with morphine or buprenorphine. Propofol and alfaxalone were the preferred induction agents, and isoflurane was preferred for maintenance in both dogs and cats. A venous catheter was usually placed for anaesthesia in dogs (59/113; 52%), but less so in cats (39/113; 35%). Perioperative fluid was administered at 10 mL/kg/hour by 62/110 (56%) respondents. Intubation was usually used for anaesthesia in dogs (111/112; 99%), and cats (87/112; 78%). Almost 40% of respondents usually administered supplementary oxygen if patients were not intubated. Local analgesia was used by 69/111 (88%) respondents sometimes or always if applicable. Morphine or buprenorphine, and meloxicam were common choices for post-operative analgesia after neuter surgery in dogs and cats. A semiclosed (non-rebreathing) system was used in animals weighing <10 kg, and a Mapleson E or F non-rebreathing circuit was used by 66/109 (61%) practices. Only 15/111 (14%) practices had a ventilator in their practice. A dedicated anaesthetist was usually used by 104/113 (92%) practices, and apnoea alarms, pulse oximeters, thermometers and oesophageal stethoscopes were the main monitoring devices available in practices. Loco-regional block, pain management, and anaesthetic drugs were the main topics of interest for continuing education.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Responses by the veterinarians taking part in this survey indicated that they had a reasonably good standard of anaesthetic practice. A physical examination was carried out preanaesthesia, and premedication including analgesia was routinely administered to most patients. A dedicated anaesthetist usually monitored patients and most respondents reported they had access to basic anaesthetic monitoring equipment. Areas where changes could lead to improved anaesthetic practice were increased use of I/V catheterisation, endotracheal intubation, and supplementary oxygen, and reduced I/V fluid rates.</p

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. Design: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. Setting: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. Participants: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). Interventions: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. Main outcome measures: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. Results: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). Conclusions: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306