{"title":"犬手术去势:切口入路是否影响术后恢复?","authors":"Ariel Brunn","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i4.587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PICO question\nIn male dogs undergoing surgical castration, does a pre-scrotal approach in comparison to a scrotal approach lead to a superior recovery, in terms of duration of postoperative pain and/or reduced post-operative complications?\n \nClinical bottom line\nCategory of research\nTreatment.\nNumber and type of study designs reviewed\nTwo prospective clinical trials were critically appraised.\nStrength of evidence\nWeak.\nOutcomes reported\nWoodruff et al. (2015) evaluated postoperative recovery in 206 dogs following surgical castration using a scrotal incision in comparison to 231 dogs using a pre-scrotal approach. Complications observed in order of frequency, included: incisional swelling; haemorrhage; pain; and self-trauma, however, apart from self-trauma, complications were not influenced by incision location. Dogs castrated using a scrotal approach had reduced odds of self-trauma (OR: 0.51, P = 0.04, 95% CI 0.27–0.97). Moreover, mean duration of surgery was faster for the scrotal versus the pre-scrotal approach (3.6 minutes, P<0.01, 95% CI 3.38–3.82 versus 5.1 minutes, 95% CI 4.86–5.41).\nMiller et al. (2018) evaluated complication rates following open or closed castration using a scrotal approach in 400 shelter dogs under the age of 6 months. Complications involving intra-operative bleeding were not observed, while marginal rates of post-operative events were reported, including peri-incisional dermatitis (2.3%), skin bruising (1.0%), and swelling (0.3%). No self-trauma or rescue analgesia was recorded. In comparing surgical time, the mean duration was 1 minute ± 0.2 minutes in dogs undergoing scrotal surgery, in comparison to canine patients undergoing the same procedure using a pre-scrotal approach, where the mean duration was 3.5 minutes ± 0.4 minutes.\nConclusion\nThe outcomes of these two studies imply that a scrotal incisional approach in canine castration is at least no worse in the first 24 hours than a traditional pre-scrotal approach and may also reduce mean duration of surgery. However, limitations to the evidence do not permit a firm conclusion and it also remains unclear whether these advantages persist in the longer postoperative period. Further research is needed to confirm initial findings suggested here.\n \nHow to apply this evidence in practice\nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.\nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical castration in dogs: does the incision approach influence postoperative recovery?\",\"authors\":\"Ariel Brunn\",\"doi\":\"10.18849/ve.v7i4.587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PICO question\\nIn male dogs undergoing surgical castration, does a pre-scrotal approach in comparison to a scrotal approach lead to a superior recovery, in terms of duration of postoperative pain and/or reduced post-operative complications?\\n \\nClinical bottom line\\nCategory of research\\nTreatment.\\nNumber and type of study designs reviewed\\nTwo prospective clinical trials were critically appraised.\\nStrength of evidence\\nWeak.\\nOutcomes reported\\nWoodruff et al. (2015) evaluated postoperative recovery in 206 dogs following surgical castration using a scrotal incision in comparison to 231 dogs using a pre-scrotal approach. Complications observed in order of frequency, included: incisional swelling; haemorrhage; pain; and self-trauma, however, apart from self-trauma, complications were not influenced by incision location. Dogs castrated using a scrotal approach had reduced odds of self-trauma (OR: 0.51, P = 0.04, 95% CI 0.27–0.97). Moreover, mean duration of surgery was faster for the scrotal versus the pre-scrotal approach (3.6 minutes, P<0.01, 95% CI 3.38–3.82 versus 5.1 minutes, 95% CI 4.86–5.41).\\nMiller et al. (2018) evaluated complication rates following open or closed castration using a scrotal approach in 400 shelter dogs under the age of 6 months. Complications involving intra-operative bleeding were not observed, while marginal rates of post-operative events were reported, including peri-incisional dermatitis (2.3%), skin bruising (1.0%), and swelling (0.3%). No self-trauma or rescue analgesia was recorded. In comparing surgical time, the mean duration was 1 minute ± 0.2 minutes in dogs undergoing scrotal surgery, in comparison to canine patients undergoing the same procedure using a pre-scrotal approach, where the mean duration was 3.5 minutes ± 0.4 minutes.\\nConclusion\\nThe outcomes of these two studies imply that a scrotal incisional approach in canine castration is at least no worse in the first 24 hours than a traditional pre-scrotal approach and may also reduce mean duration of surgery. However, limitations to the evidence do not permit a firm conclusion and it also remains unclear whether these advantages persist in the longer postoperative period. Further research is needed to confirm initial findings suggested here.\\n \\nHow to apply this evidence in practice\\nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.\\nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":257905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i4.587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i4.587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
PICO问题:在接受阉割手术的雄性犬中,在术后疼痛持续时间和/或减少术后并发症方面,与阴囊入路相比,阴囊前入路是否能更好地恢复?临床底线研究类别治疗。审查的研究设计的数量和类型对两项前瞻性临床试验进行了严格评价。证据强度:弱。woodruff等人(2015)评估了206只使用阴囊切口进行手术阉割的狗的术后恢复情况,与231只使用阴囊前入路的狗进行了比较。观察到的并发症发生率依次为:切口肿胀;出血;疼痛;而自我创伤方面,除自我创伤外,并发症不受切口位置的影响。使用阴囊入路阉割的狗减少了自我创伤的几率(OR: 0.51, P = 0.04, 95% CI 0.27-0.97)。此外,阴囊入路的平均手术时间比阴囊前入路快(3.6分钟,P<0.01, 95% CI 3.38-3.82比5.1分钟,95% CI 4.86-5.41)。Miller等人(2018)对400只6个月以下的收容所狗进行了阴囊开式或闭式阉割后的并发症发生率评估。未观察到术中出血的并发症,但报告了手术后事件的边际率,包括切口周围皮炎(2.3%),皮肤瘀伤(1.0%)和肿胀(0.3%)。无自我创伤或抢救性镇痛记录。在比较手术时间时,接受阴囊手术的犬平均持续时间为1分钟±0.2分钟,而采用阴囊前入路的犬患者平均持续时间为3.5分钟±0.4分钟。结论阴囊切口入路在犬去势手术的前24小时内至少不比传统的阴囊前入路差,而且可以缩短平均手术时间。然而,由于证据的限制,尚不能得出确切的结论,并且尚不清楚这些优势是否在术后较长时间内持续存在。需要进一步的研究来证实这里提出的初步发现。如何将证据应用于实践应考虑多种因素,不限于:个人临床专业知识、患者的情况和所有者的价值观、您工作的国家、地点或诊所、您面前的个案、治疗方法和资源的可用性。知识摘要是帮助加强或告知决策的资源。他们不会凌驾于从业者的责任或判断之上,去做对他们照顾的动物最好的事情。
Surgical castration in dogs: does the incision approach influence postoperative recovery?
PICO question
In male dogs undergoing surgical castration, does a pre-scrotal approach in comparison to a scrotal approach lead to a superior recovery, in terms of duration of postoperative pain and/or reduced post-operative complications?
Clinical bottom line
Category of research
Treatment.
Number and type of study designs reviewed
Two prospective clinical trials were critically appraised.
Strength of evidence
Weak.
Outcomes reported
Woodruff et al. (2015) evaluated postoperative recovery in 206 dogs following surgical castration using a scrotal incision in comparison to 231 dogs using a pre-scrotal approach. Complications observed in order of frequency, included: incisional swelling; haemorrhage; pain; and self-trauma, however, apart from self-trauma, complications were not influenced by incision location. Dogs castrated using a scrotal approach had reduced odds of self-trauma (OR: 0.51, P = 0.04, 95% CI 0.27–0.97). Moreover, mean duration of surgery was faster for the scrotal versus the pre-scrotal approach (3.6 minutes, P<0.01, 95% CI 3.38–3.82 versus 5.1 minutes, 95% CI 4.86–5.41).
Miller et al. (2018) evaluated complication rates following open or closed castration using a scrotal approach in 400 shelter dogs under the age of 6 months. Complications involving intra-operative bleeding were not observed, while marginal rates of post-operative events were reported, including peri-incisional dermatitis (2.3%), skin bruising (1.0%), and swelling (0.3%). No self-trauma or rescue analgesia was recorded. In comparing surgical time, the mean duration was 1 minute ± 0.2 minutes in dogs undergoing scrotal surgery, in comparison to canine patients undergoing the same procedure using a pre-scrotal approach, where the mean duration was 3.5 minutes ± 0.4 minutes.
Conclusion
The outcomes of these two studies imply that a scrotal incisional approach in canine castration is at least no worse in the first 24 hours than a traditional pre-scrotal approach and may also reduce mean duration of surgery. However, limitations to the evidence do not permit a firm conclusion and it also remains unclear whether these advantages persist in the longer postoperative period. Further research is needed to confirm initial findings suggested here.
How to apply this evidence in practice
The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.