28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background. Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a local anesthetic line block administered before surgery in reducing postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVHX).

          Methods. This study is a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial involving 59 healthy female dogs. An algometric pressure-measuring device was used to determine nociceptive threshold, and compared to three subjective pain scales. Group L/B received a line block of lidocaine (4 mg/kg) and bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) subcutaneously in the area of the incision site and saline subcutaneously as premedication; group L/BM (positive control) received a similar block and morphine (0.5 mg/kg) subcutaneously for premedication; and group SS (negative control) received a saline line block and saline premedication. Criteria for rescue analgesia were defined before the study. Dogs were assessed prior to surgery, at extubation (time 0) and at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h post-recovery. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and a Split Plot Repeated Measures ANOVA with one grouping factor and one repeat factor (time). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

          Results. Approximately 33% of dogs required rescue analgesia at some point during the study, with no significant difference between groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with any assessment method.

          Conclusions. As there were no statistically significant differences between positive and negative controls, the outcome of this technique cannot be proven.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs.

          To describe a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy (LAOHE) and compare duration of surgery, complications, measures of surgical stress, and postoperative pain with open ovariohysterectomy (OHE) in dogs. Randomized, prospective clinical trial. 20 healthy sexually intact female dogs weighing >10 kg (22 lb). Dogs were randomly allocated to receive conventional OHE or LAOHE. Intraoperative complications, anesthetic complications, total anesthesia time, and total surgery time were recorded. Serum cortisol and glucose concentrations, temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate were measured preoperatively and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. Pain scores were assigned by a nonblinded observer at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. Duration of surgery, pain scores, objective measures of surgical stress, anesthetic complications, and surgical complications were compared between OHE and LAOHE. Age, weight, PCV, and duration of surgery did not differ between treatment groups. Nine of 10 dogs in the OHE group required additional pain medication on the basis of pain scores, whereas none of the dogs in the LAOHE group did. Blood glucose concentrations were significantly increased from preoperative concentrations in the OHE group at 1, 2, 4, and 6 hours postoperatively and at 1 hour postoperatively in the LAOHE group. Cortisol concentrations were significantly increased at 1 and 2 hours postoperatively in the OHE group. LAOHE caused less pain and surgical stress than OHE and may be more appropriate for an outpatient setting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a scale to evaluate postoperative pain in dogs.

            To design and evaluate a scale for measurement of postoperative pain in dogs. Randomized, blinded, prospective study, with positive- and negative-control groups. 36 dogs undergoing general anesthesia for ovariohysterectomy and 12 dogs undergoing general anesthesia without surgery. A pain assessment scale was developed for dogs, which incorporated physiologic data (heart and respiratory rates) and behavioral responses (response to palpation, activity, mental status, posture, and vocalization). This pain scale was then applied to a study in which dogs were allocated to 2 groups, depending on the type of medication administered (acepromazine maleate only or acepromazine and butorphanol) before induction of general anesthesia. The 36 dogs that had ovariohysterectomy were allocated to 3 groups, members of which received butorphanol, carprofen, or no analgesic after surgery. Dogs were scored for signs of pain and videotaped at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 18 hours after surgery by an assessor who was blinded to the groups. Results were analyzed for significant differences in pain scores for single categories and total pain scores among groups. Video segments were scrambled and then scored by a second external assessor to test the repeatability of the results, using the pain assessment scale. Mean total pain scores were significantly different between the group of dogs that underwent general anesthesia only and each group of dogs that underwent general anesthesia and surgery. Pain scores for the analgesic-treatment groups reflected the known onset and duration of action of the analgesic used. Agreement between the internal and external assessors was excellent and indicated high precision between the 2 assessors for the population of dogs as a whole. Behavioral and physiologic measurements can be used reliably to evaluate degree of pain in dogs during the postoperative period and their response to analgesics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Application of a scaling model to establish and validate an interval level pain scale for assessment of acute pain in dogs.

              To establish interval level measurement in a prototype composite measure pain scale (CMPS) for assessment of acute pain in dogs and to investigate the scale's validity. 20 clinically normal dogs, 20 dogs with medical conditions, and 117 dogs undergoing surgery. First, a scaling model was applied to the CMPS descriptors to establish weights for each and create a continuous scale. Subsequently, 5 observers independently used the scale to score signs of pain in 4 groups of dogs (control dogs, dogs with medical conditions, and 40 dogs undergoing soft tissue or orthopedic surgery). Scores from each group and from groups of conditions perceived to cause no, mild, moderate, and severe pain were compared. In addition, the scale was applied to 77 dogs undergoing orthopedic or soft tissue surgery and scores were compared with simultaneously derived numeric rating scale (NRS) scores; comparisons were made between surgical groups and with time after surgery. Calculated scale descriptor weights ranged from -2.0 to 2.0 and were transformed to create a continuous scale from 0 to 10. Median CMPS scores differed significantly among the 4 study groups and among pain severity groups and were typically greater with increasing perceived pain severity. Agreement was determined between CMPS and NRS scores, and there was a significant and expected time effect and difference between the CMPS scores of dogs undergoing orthopedic and soft tissue surgery. Results indicate that this interval level measurement scale is a valid measure of acute pain in dogs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Francisco, USA )
                2167-8359
                10 April 2014
                2014
                : 2
                : e341
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California , Davis, CA, USA
                [2 ]Comparative Pain Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Sciences & Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University , Raleigh, NC, USA
                [3 ]Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California , Davis, CA, USA
                Author notes
                [4]

                Current affiliation: Mythos Veterinary LLC, Gainesville, FL, USA

                Article
                341
                10.7717/peerj.341
                3994627
                24765575
                4a26e2d4-34cd-4783-a1b7-2d2771f99e24
                © 2014 McKune et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 31 December 2013
                : 23 March 2014
                Funding
                Funded by: Center for Companion Animal Health, University of California (Davis)
                This work was funded by the Center for Companion Animal Health, University of California (Davis). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Veterinary Medicine
                Anaesthesiology and Pain Management
                Surgery and Surgical Specialties

                bupivacaine,lidocaine,pain assessment,local anesthesia,dog
                bupivacaine, lidocaine, pain assessment, local anesthesia, dog

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content78

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors270