Wolfe Tina M, Bateman Shane W, Cole Lynette K, Smeak Daniel D
Cincinnati Animal Referral and Emergency Center, Cincinnati, OH 45249, USA.
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2006 Sep;33(5):328-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2005.00272.x.
To determine if a constant rate local anesthetic delivery system is more effective than continuous intravenous (IV) morphine infusion for postoperative analgesia.
Twenty client-owned dogs undergoing total ear canal ablation.
Dogs were randomly assigned to the lidocaine group (LID) or the morphine group (MOR). The LID group received a constant rate infusion of lidocaine locally and a continuous IV infusion of saline, while the MOR group received a constant rate infusion of saline locally and a continuous IV infusion of morphine. The primary investigator evaluated each patient and determined a hospital behavior score, anesthesia recovery score, preoperative pain score, and serial postoperative pain and sedation scores over 38 hours. Pain and sedation observations were videotaped and scored by three additional evaluators. Evaluators were blinded to treatment assignments.
There were no significant differences in age, weight, hospital behavior scores or anesthesia recovery scores. The primary investigator's pain scores were not significantly different, but sedation scores were significantly lower for the LID group. Sedation and pain scores by the video evaluators were not significantly different between groups. Kappa agreement between observers was poor, but better agreement was noted between sedation scores than pain scores. Drug-related complications were significantly lower in the LID group (n = 0) compared with the MOR group (n = 5). Wound complications were not significantly different (LID = 4, MOR = 4). Intravenous delivery complications occurred in 12 (60%) patients. Local delivery complications occurred in five (25%) dogs. Delivery complications were not significantly different between groups.
Continuous incisional lidocaine delivery was an equipotent and viable method of providing postoperative analgesia compared with IV morphine. Lidocaine delivery resulted in a trend toward lower pain scores, significantly lower sedation scores, and no dogs requiring analgesic rescue. Wound complications secondary to local infusion were minor and self-limiting. Drug-related complications occurred only in the MOR group.
确定持续局部麻醉给药系统在术后镇痛方面是否比持续静脉输注吗啡更有效。
20只客户拥有的犬接受全耳道切除术。
将犬随机分为利多卡因组(LID)或吗啡组(MOR)。LID组局部持续输注利多卡因并静脉持续输注生理盐水,而MOR组局部持续输注生理盐水并静脉持续输注吗啡。主要研究者对每只犬进行评估,并在38小时内确定医院行为评分、麻醉恢复评分、术前疼痛评分以及术后连续的疼痛和镇静评分。疼痛和镇静观察情况被录像,另外三名评估者进行评分。评估者对治疗分组不知情。
两组在年龄、体重、医院行为评分或麻醉恢复评分方面无显著差异。主要研究者的疼痛评分无显著差异,但LID组的镇静评分显著更低。视频评估者的镇静和疼痛评分在两组之间无显著差异。观察者之间的kappa一致性较差,但镇静评分的一致性比疼痛评分更好。与药物相关的并发症在LID组(n = 0)显著低于MOR组(n = 5)。伤口并发症无显著差异(LID组 = 4例,MOR组 = 4例)。静脉给药并发症发生在12只(60%)犬。局部给药并发症发生在5只(25%)犬。两组给药并发症无显著差异。
与静脉注射吗啡相比,持续切口利多卡因给药是一种等效且可行的术后镇痛方法。利多卡因给药导致疼痛评分有降低趋势、镇静评分显著更低,且没有犬需要镇痛补救。局部输注引起的伤口并发症轻微且为自限性。与药物相关的并发症仅发生在MOR组。