OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic effects of buprenorphine, carprofen, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized blinded clinical study. ANIMALS: 60 dogs. METHODS: Treatments were buprenorphine 0.02 mg kg(-1), intramuscularly (IM) (group B); carprofen 4 mg kg(-1), subcutaneously (SC) (group C); or a combination of both (group CB). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. A Dynamic Interactive Visual Analog Scale (DIVAS, 0-100 mm) and the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCMPS, 0-24) were used to evaluate comfort and sedation at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours after extubation. Rescue analgesia was provided with buprenorphine (0.02 mg kg(-1)). Wound swelling measurements (WM) and a visual inflammation score (VIS) of the incision were made after surgery and 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours later. p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Group C required more propofol (5.0 +/- 1.4 mg kg(-1)) compared with B (3.3 +/- 1.1 mg kg(-1)) and CB (3.2 +/- 0.7 mg kg(-1)); respectively, p = 0.0002 and 0.0001. Rescue analgesia was required in nine dogs. B had a higher GCMPS and DIVAS III score at 6 hours (2.6 +/- 2.5) and (23 +/- 22.5 mm) compared with C (1.0 +/- 1.3, 6 +/- 7.3 mm) and CB (1.5 +/- 1.4, 8 +/- 10.7 mm); respectively, p = 0.02 and 0.006. Group C had a lower sedation score at 2 hours (43 +/- 23.6 mm) compared with B (68 +/- 32.1 mm) and BC (69 +/- 22.1 mm); respectively, p = 0.03 and 0.004. Group B had a higher WM score at 2 hours (3 +/- 0.8 mm) compared with C (2 +/- 0.6 mm) p = 0.01 and at 6 hours (3 +/- 1 mm) compared with C (2 +/- 0.8 mm) and CB (2 +/- 0.8 mm); respectively, p = 0.01 and 0.008. VIS was not different between groups. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All treatments provided satisfactory analgesia for the first 6 hours and at 24 hours. C and CB pain score and WS were superior to B at 6 hours. No superior analgesic effect was noted when the drugs were combined.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic effects of buprenorphine, carprofen, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized blinded clinical study. ANIMALS: 60 dogs. METHODS: Treatments were buprenorphine 0.02 mg kg(-1), intramuscularly (IM) (group B); carprofen 4 mg kg(-1), subcutaneously (SC) (group C); or a combination of both (group CB). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. A Dynamic Interactive Visual Analog Scale (DIVAS, 0-100 mm) and the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCMPS, 0-24) were used to evaluate comfort and sedation at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours after extubation. Rescue analgesia was provided with buprenorphine (0.02 mg kg(-1)). Wound swelling measurements (WM) and a visual inflammation score (VIS) of the incision were made after surgery and 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours later. p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Group C required more propofol (5.0 +/- 1.4 mg kg(-1)) compared with B (3.3 +/- 1.1 mg kg(-1)) and CB (3.2 +/- 0.7 mg kg(-1)); respectively, p = 0.0002 and 0.0001. Rescue analgesia was required in nine dogs. B had a higher GCMPS and DIVAS III score at 6 hours (2.6 +/- 2.5) and (23 +/- 22.5 mm) compared with C (1.0 +/- 1.3, 6 +/- 7.3 mm) and CB (1.5 +/- 1.4, 8 +/- 10.7 mm); respectively, p = 0.02 and 0.006. Group C had a lower sedation score at 2 hours (43 +/- 23.6 mm) compared with B (68 +/- 32.1 mm) and BC (69 +/- 22.1 mm); respectively, p = 0.03 and 0.004. Group B had a higher WM score at 2 hours (3 +/- 0.8 mm) compared with C (2 +/- 0.6 mm) p = 0.01 and at 6 hours (3 +/- 1 mm) compared with C (2 +/- 0.8 mm) and CB (2 +/- 0.8 mm); respectively, p = 0.01 and 0.008. VIS was not different between groups. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All treatments provided satisfactory analgesia for the first 6 hours and at 24 hours. C and CB pain score and WS were superior to B at 6 hours. No superior analgesic effect was noted when the drugs were combined.
Authors: Carolina Quarterone; Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna; Nadia Crosignani; Flávia Augusta de Oliveira; Carlize Lopes; Alfredo Feio da Maia Lima; Antonio Jose de Araújo Aguiar Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Elizabeth A Nunamaker; DeAnne F Stolarik; Junli Ma; Amanda S Wilsey; Gary J Jenkins; Chris L Medina Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Adam C Caro; Jennica J Tucker; Sarah M Yannascoli; Andrew A Dunkman; Stephen J Thomas; Louis J Soslowsky Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Gabriel P McKeon; Cholawat Pacharinsak; Charles T Long; Antwain M Howard; Katechan Jampachaisri; David C Yeomans; Stephen A Felt Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Pascale Rialland; Simon Authier; Martin Guillot; Jérôme R E Del Castillo; Daphnée Veilleux-Lemieux; Diane Frank; Dominique Gauvin; Eric Troncy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ryota Watanabe; Beatriz P Monteiro; Marina C Evangelista; Amélie Castonguay; Daniel Edge; Paulo V Steagall Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 2.741