The University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Cátedra de Anestesiología y Algiología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2020 May;47(3):385-390. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2019.09.008. Epub 2020 Jan 25.
To compare the nerve stimulation test (group NS) with the running-drip method (group RUN) for successful identification of the sacrococcygeal (SCo) epidural space prior to drug administration in dogs.
A total of 62 dogs.
A randomized clinical study.
Dogs requiring an epidural anaesthetic as part of the multimodal anaesthetic plan were randomly allocated to one of the two study groups. In group NS, the epidural space was located using an insulated needle connected to a nerve stimulator; in group RUN, the epidural space was identified using a Tuohy needle connected to a fluid bag elevated 60 cm above the spine via an administration set. The success of the technique was assessed 5 minutes after epidural injection by the disappearance of the patella reflex. Data were checked for normality, nonparametric data was analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and success rate was analysed using a Fisher's exact test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and the results are presented in absolute values, percentage (95% confident interval) and median (range).
The success in identification of the epidural space did not differ between groups NS and RUN [87.1% (70.2%-96.4%) versus 90.3% (74.2%-98%); p = 1.000]. The time required for identification of the epidural space was shorter in group RUN [26 (15-53) seconds] than in group NS [40 (19-137) seconds] (p = 0.0225). No other differences were found in any studied variables.
and clinical relevance In this study, both RUN and NS techniques were successful in identifying the epidural space at the SCo intervertebral space. RUN requires no specialised equipment, can be performed rapidly and offers an alternative to the NS for use in general veterinary practice.
比较神经刺激测试(NS 组)和滴注跑冒法(RUN 组)在犬进行药物给药前,用于成功识别荐尾部硬膜外腔的效果。
共 62 只狗。
随机临床研究。
需要作为多模式麻醉计划的一部分进行硬膜外麻醉的狗,被随机分配到两个研究组中的一个。在 NS 组中,使用与神经刺激器相连的绝缘针来定位硬膜外腔;在 RUN 组中,使用与装有输液袋的 Tuohy 针连接,通过输液器将输液袋悬挂在脊柱上方 60 厘米处来识别硬膜外腔。硬膜外注射后 5 分钟,通过消失的髌骨反射评估技术的成功。检查数据的正态性,使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验分析非参数数据,使用 Fisher 精确检验分析成功率。显著性水平设为 p < 0.05,结果以绝对值、百分比(95%置信区间)和中位数(范围)表示。
NS 组和 RUN 组硬膜外腔识别成功率无差异[87.1%(70.2%-96.4%)与 90.3%(74.2%-98%);p = 1.000]。RUN 组识别硬膜外腔所需的时间更短[26(15-53)秒],而 NS 组为[40(19-137)秒](p = 0.0225)。在任何研究变量中均未发现其他差异。
在这项研究中,RUN 和 NS 技术均成功地在荐尾部椎间空间识别硬膜外腔。RUN 不需要专门的设备,可以快速进行,并且是兽医实践中 NS 的替代方法。