Recuperação anestésica e analgesia residual da infusão continua intravenosa de fantanil, lidocaína, cetamina e fentanyl-lidocaína-cetamina associados à anesthesia total intravenosa com Propofol em cadelas submetidas à ovariossalpingo-histerectomia eletiva / Anesthetic recovery and residual analgesia of constant rate infusion intraoperative of fentanyl, lidocaine, ketamine or fentanyl-lidocaine-ketamine associated with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bitches submitted to elective ovariohysterectomy

Avaliou-se a recuperação anestésica e a analgesia residual da infusão contínua (IC) de fentanil (F), lidocaína (L), cetamina (K) e fentanil-lidocaína-cetamina (FLK), associados à anestesia total intravenosa com o propofol, em cadelas submetidas à ovariossalpingo-histerectomia. Foram utilizados 32 animais pré-medicados com acepromazina, distribuídos em quatro grupos de acordo com o tratamento analgésico: F: bolus de 0,0036mg/kg de fentanil e IC de 0,0036mg mg/kg/h; L: bolus de 3mg/kg de lidocaína e IC de 3mg/kg/h; K: bolus de 0,6mg/kg de cetamina e IC de 0,6mg/kg/h; e FLK: bolus e IC dos três fármacos nas doses supracitadas. Após o bolus do tratamento analgésico, foi realizada a indução e o início da IC do tratamento analgésico e do propofol. Para avaliação da recuperação anestésica, foram considerados os tempos de extubação, decúbito esternal, posição quadrupedal e os efeitos adversos. A avaliação da analgesia foi realizada por meio da escala visual analógica e modificada de Glasgow, durante seis horas. Os efeitos adversos observados foram vômito, sialorreia e tremor muscular. Receberam analgesia de resgate 100% dos animais do grupo F, 87,5% do K, 50% do L e 12,5% do FLK. O FLK demonstrou maior analgesia, e a recuperação anestésica foi semelhante em todos os grupos.(AU)

The anesthetic recovery and residual analgesia of continuous rate infusion (CRI) of fentanyl (F), lidocaine (L), ketamine (K) and fentanyl-lidocaine-ketamine (FLK) associated with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol in bitches submitted to ovariohysterectomy were evaluated. 32 animals were used, pre-medicated with acepromazine and distributed into four groups according to analgesic treatment: F loading dose (LD) of 0.0036mg/kg fentanyl, and CRI of 0.0036mg/kg/h, L: LD of 3mg/kg lidocaine, and CRI of 3mg/kg/h; K: LD of 0.6mg/kg ketamine, and CRI of 0.6mg/kg/h and FLK: LD and CRI of the three drugs in the above mentioned doses. After the LD of analgesic treatment, the induction was performed and the CRI of the analgesic treatment and propofol started. To evaluate the anesthetic recovery, the time of extubation, sternal decubitus, quadrupedal position and adverse effects were considered. The analgesia evaluation was performed using the visual scale and modified Glasgow for six hours. The adverse effects observed were vomiting, sialorrhea and muscle tremor. 100% of the animals in group F, 87.5% of K, 50% of L and 12.5% of FLK received rescue analgesia. FLK demonstrated greater analgesia, and anesthesia recovery was similar in all groups.(AU)

Evaluating Full Cup Study, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale in Assessing Pain after Surgical Removal of Lower Third Molar

@#The objectives of this study is to evaluate the suitability of full cup test (FCT), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess pain after surgical removal of lower third molar and to identify which of these three pain scales is the easiest to use. A total of 50 patients, age between 18 to 30 years who underwent minor oral surgery for removal of impacted third molar were sampled in Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya. The patients were provided with forms containing three pain scales and they were required to mark each pain scales – FCT, NPRS and VAS daily for three consecutive post-operative days. The forms were collected a week later when patients came back for review. The validity between NPRS with VAS, FCT with NPRS and FCT with VAS were tested using Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Results showed that the correlation coefficient values for each pair were very high and significant. The findings when comparing Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3 and the combination for those three days showed no significant differences. No evidences indicated that the findings for Day 1 were more superior in comparison with other days. In conclusion, FCT was as valid as NPRS and VAS. The pain scale which was claimed to be the easiest to use by patients was NPRS, followed by FCT and VAS. However, further studies are needed to investigate the reliability and sensitivity of FCT.