Anna R P Henderson, Alexander Valverde, Judith Koenig, William Sears
{"title":"Effects of anesthetic protocol, procedure, and recovery stall and interval on the quality of recovery in repeatedly anesthetized horses.","authors":"Anna R P Henderson, Alexander Valverde, Judith Koenig, William Sears","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this prospective study was to investigate whether repeated consecutive general anesthesia in horses undergoing 2 different anesthetic protocols could lead to improved recovery scores. Six healthy female Standardbred horses (453 ± 57 kg; 6.5 ± 4.2 y old) underwent 4 anesthetic protocols over 12 to 13 wk. Procedures 1 and 4 were arthroscopic surgeries [induction: xylazine, diazepam, and ketamine; and maintenance: Fe'Isoflurane (1.1%), lidocaine (2 mg/kg body weight [BW], 50 to 100 μg/min per kg BW), dexmedetomidine (2.5 μg/h per kg BW)]. Procedures 2 and 3 were preparation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [induction: xylazine, guaifenesin, and ketamine; and maintenance: Fe'Isoflurane (1.3%)], as well as mechanical ventilation during all events. For recovery, horses were placed in 2 different recovery stalls, one for procedures 1 and 4, and a different one for procedures 2 and 3, and received xylazine, 0.15 to 0.25 mg/kg BW, IV. Recovery was scored using a numerical score and descriptive scale. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare recovery scores, cardiopulmonary variables, anesthetic times, and drug dosages between procedures (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Anesthetic protocols for procedures 3 (10.5 ± 2.5) and 4 (10.2 ± 3.1) had better (<i>P</i> = 0.0348) recovery numerical scores than those for procedure 2 (14.3 ± 1.9) and were similar to those for procedure 1 (11.5 ± 2.3), but overall descriptive scores were not significantly different (1 = 1.7 ± 0.5, 2 = 1.8 ± 0.4, 3 = 1.3 ± 0.5, 4 = 1.3 ± 0.5). Balance and coordination (<i>P</i> = 0.0172) and knuckling (<i>P</i> = 0.0193) were associated with worse recovery in procedure 2. Anesthesia time was longer (<i>P</i> < 0.0001) in procedures 2 (157 ± 11 min) and 3 (96 ± 5 min) than in procedures 1 (72 ± 9 min) and 4 (60 ± 5 min). In conclusion, the quality of recovery is influenced by anesthetic protocol and in this study, quality improved in procedures 3 and 4 compared to procedure 2.</p>","PeriodicalId":93919,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire","volume":"89 1","pages":"17-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11665727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The objective of this prospective study was to investigate whether repeated consecutive general anesthesia in horses undergoing 2 different anesthetic protocols could lead to improved recovery scores. Six healthy female Standardbred horses (453 ± 57 kg; 6.5 ± 4.2 y old) underwent 4 anesthetic protocols over 12 to 13 wk. Procedures 1 and 4 were arthroscopic surgeries [induction: xylazine, diazepam, and ketamine; and maintenance: Fe'Isoflurane (1.1%), lidocaine (2 mg/kg body weight [BW], 50 to 100 μg/min per kg BW), dexmedetomidine (2.5 μg/h per kg BW)]. Procedures 2 and 3 were preparation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [induction: xylazine, guaifenesin, and ketamine; and maintenance: Fe'Isoflurane (1.3%)], as well as mechanical ventilation during all events. For recovery, horses were placed in 2 different recovery stalls, one for procedures 1 and 4, and a different one for procedures 2 and 3, and received xylazine, 0.15 to 0.25 mg/kg BW, IV. Recovery was scored using a numerical score and descriptive scale. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare recovery scores, cardiopulmonary variables, anesthetic times, and drug dosages between procedures (P < 0.05). Anesthetic protocols for procedures 3 (10.5 ± 2.5) and 4 (10.2 ± 3.1) had better (P = 0.0348) recovery numerical scores than those for procedure 2 (14.3 ± 1.9) and were similar to those for procedure 1 (11.5 ± 2.3), but overall descriptive scores were not significantly different (1 = 1.7 ± 0.5, 2 = 1.8 ± 0.4, 3 = 1.3 ± 0.5, 4 = 1.3 ± 0.5). Balance and coordination (P = 0.0172) and knuckling (P = 0.0193) were associated with worse recovery in procedure 2. Anesthesia time was longer (P < 0.0001) in procedures 2 (157 ± 11 min) and 3 (96 ± 5 min) than in procedures 1 (72 ± 9 min) and 4 (60 ± 5 min). In conclusion, the quality of recovery is influenced by anesthetic protocol and in this study, quality improved in procedures 3 and 4 compared to procedure 2.