Bartosz Dybowski1, Anna Burdzińska2, Katarzyna Siewruk3, Michał Dąbrowski3, Leszek Pączek2,4, Piotr Radziszewski1. 1. Departments of Urology and, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Immunology, Transplantology and Internal Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 3. Department of Large Animal Diseases with Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. 4. Department of Bioinformatics, Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of propofol and isoflurane on urethral pressure profilometry of female dogs and goats, and to identify the method of anesthesia that least influences urethral pressure profilometry and to assess its reproducibility. METHODS: The effects of premedication with midazolam, propofol sedation and isoflurane anesthesia were assessed in five female dogs. The effects of propofol and isoflurane were compared in seven goats, whereas in another group of 19 goats, the state of deep propofol sedation was compared with the state of recovery from propofol sedation. The coefficient of reproducibility and within-subject coefficient of variation were calculated to evaluate test-retest reproducibility. RESULTS: In conscious female dogs, maximal urethral closure pressure and functional area were significantly higher than under propofol or isoflurane (P = 0.04), but not different from the recovery state. In six of seven goats, maximal urethral closure pressure and functional area were higher when measured under propofol sedation than under isoflurane (median maximal urethral closure pressure, 69 vs 47 cmH2 O; P = 0.03). Maximal urethral closure pressure was lower under propofol than during recovery from propofol in 17 of 19 goats (median maximal urethral closure pressure, 54 vs 66 cmH2 O; P < 0.001). The test-retest coefficient of reproducibility for goats was 28 cmH2 O, and the within-subject coefficient of variation was 16%. CONCLUSIONS: In dogs, urethral pressure profilometry should be measured in conscious animals whenever possible. In goats, urethral pressure profilometry is least affected during recovery from propofol sedation, and it shows acceptable reproducibility under this condition.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of propofol and isoflurane on urethral pressure profilometry of female dogs and goats, and to identify the method of anesthesia that least influences urethral pressure profilometry and to assess its reproducibility. METHODS: The effects of premedication with midazolam, propofol sedation and isoflurane anesthesia were assessed in five female dogs. The effects of propofol and isoflurane were compared in seven goats, whereas in another group of 19 goats, the state of deep propofol sedation was compared with the state of recovery from propofol sedation. The coefficient of reproducibility and within-subject coefficient of variation were calculated to evaluate test-retest reproducibility. RESULTS: In conscious female dogs, maximal urethral closure pressure and functional area were significantly higher than under propofol or isoflurane (P = 0.04), but not different from the recovery state. In six of seven goats, maximal urethral closure pressure and functional area were higher when measured under propofol sedation than under isoflurane (median maximal urethral closure pressure, 69 vs 47 cmH2 O; P = 0.03). Maximal urethral closure pressure was lower under propofol than during recovery from propofol in 17 of 19 goats (median maximal urethral closure pressure, 54 vs 66 cmH2 O; P < 0.001). The test-retest coefficient of reproducibility for goats was 28 cmH2 O, and the within-subject coefficient of variation was 16%. CONCLUSIONS: In dogs, urethral pressure profilometry should be measured in conscious animals whenever possible. In goats, urethral pressure profilometry is least affected during recovery from propofol sedation, and it shows acceptable reproducibility under this condition.