This study compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal and incisional lidocaine versus ropivacaine in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries. Dogs randomly received intraperitoneal lidocaine irrigation (4 mg kg-1, diluted to 5 ml kg-1, L group), ropiva- caine (4 mg kg-1, diluted to 5 ml kg-1, R group) or 0.9% saline (5 ml kg-1, C group). Prior to skin closure, dogs received incisional lidocaine 2 mg kg-1 (group L), incisional ropivacaine 2 mg kg-1 (group R) or incisional saline 0.2 ml kg-1 (group C). Pain was assessed at different time points up to 24 hours after extubation, using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Mea- sure Pain Scale and VAS Scale. In group C, postoperative pain scores were significantly higher than in groups L and R from T0.5 to T6 (p < 0.05). In R group, postoperative pain scores were significantly lower than in groups L and C from T12 to T24 (p < 0.05). Rescue analgesia was administered to 5/11 dogs in L group, 1/10 dogs in R group and 8/10 dogs in C group. Groups L and R experienced a significantly lower postoperative pain during the first 6 hours after extubation, compared with group C. Ropivacaine provided lower postoper- ative pain scores than lidocaine and saline up to 24 hours after extubation. According to the obtained results, ropivacaine seemed to provide better and longer lasting postoperative analgesia compared with lidocaine. Therefore, intraperitoneal and incisional administration of ropivacaine in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries is recommended.

Comparison of intraperitoneal and incisional lidocaine or ropivacaine irrigation for postoperative analgesia in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries / F.A. Brioschi, G. Ravasio, F. Ferrari, M. Amari, F. Di Cesare, M. Valentini Visentin, V. Rabbogliatti. - In: PLOS ONE. - ISSN 1932-6203. - 18:4(2023 Apr 13), pp. e0284379.1-e0284379.14. [10.1371/journal.pone.0284379]

Comparison of intraperitoneal and incisional lidocaine or ropivacaine irrigation for postoperative analgesia in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries

F.A. Brioschi
Primo
;
G. Ravasio
Secondo
;
F. Ferrari;M. Amari;F. Di Cesare;V. Rabbogliatti
Ultimo
2023

Abstract

This study compared the postoperative analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal and incisional lidocaine versus ropivacaine in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries. Dogs randomly received intraperitoneal lidocaine irrigation (4 mg kg-1, diluted to 5 ml kg-1, L group), ropiva- caine (4 mg kg-1, diluted to 5 ml kg-1, R group) or 0.9% saline (5 ml kg-1, C group). Prior to skin closure, dogs received incisional lidocaine 2 mg kg-1 (group L), incisional ropivacaine 2 mg kg-1 (group R) or incisional saline 0.2 ml kg-1 (group C). Pain was assessed at different time points up to 24 hours after extubation, using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Mea- sure Pain Scale and VAS Scale. In group C, postoperative pain scores were significantly higher than in groups L and R from T0.5 to T6 (p < 0.05). In R group, postoperative pain scores were significantly lower than in groups L and C from T12 to T24 (p < 0.05). Rescue analgesia was administered to 5/11 dogs in L group, 1/10 dogs in R group and 8/10 dogs in C group. Groups L and R experienced a significantly lower postoperative pain during the first 6 hours after extubation, compared with group C. Ropivacaine provided lower postoper- ative pain scores than lidocaine and saline up to 24 hours after extubation. According to the obtained results, ropivacaine seemed to provide better and longer lasting postoperative analgesia compared with lidocaine. Therefore, intraperitoneal and incisional administration of ropivacaine in dogs undergoing major abdominal surgeries is recommended.
Settore VET/09 - Clinica Chirurgica Veterinaria
13-apr-2023
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
journal.pone.0284379.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Research Article
Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 785.28 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
785.28 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/969206
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact