RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate motor and sensory blockade of combining dexmedetomidine with ropivacaine, administered perineurally or systemically, for femoral and sciatic nerve blocks in conscious dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, experimental study. ANIMALS: Seven healthy Beagle dogs, aged 3.3 ± 0.1 years and weighing 11.0 ± 2.4 kg. METHODS: Dogs were anesthetized with isoflurane on three separate occasions for unilateral femoral and sciatic nerve blocks and were administered the following treatments in random order: perineural ropivacaine 0.75% (0.1 mL kg-1) on each nerve and intramuscular (IM) saline (0.2 mL kg-1) (Gcon); perineural dexmedetomidine (1 µg mL-1) and ropivacaine 0.75% (0.1 mL kg-1) on each nerve and IM saline (0.2 mL kg-1) (GDPN); and perineural ropivacaine 0.75% (0.1 mL kg-1) on each nerve and IM dexmedetomidine (1 µg mL-1, 0.2 mL kg-1) (Gdim). Nerve blocks were guided by ultrasound and electrical stimulation and dogs were allowed to recover from general anesthesia. Sensory blockade was evaluated by response to clamp pressure on the skin innervated by the saphenous/ femoral, common fibular and tibial nerves. Motor blockade was evaluated by observing the ability to walk and proprioception. Sensory and motor blockade were evaluated until their full recovery. RESULTS: No significant differences in onset time to motor and sensory blockade were observed among treatments. Duration of motor blockade was not significantly different among treatments; however, duration of tibial sensory blockade was longer in the Gdpn than in the GDIM treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although a longer duration of sensory blockade was observed with perineural dexmedetomidine, a significant increase compared with the control group was not established. Other concentrations should be investigated to verify if dexmedetomidine is a useful adjuvant to local anesthetics in peripheral nerve blocks in dogs.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare two concentrations of ropivacaine administered for tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in dogs undergoing mastectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical study. ANIMALS: Seventeen bitches of various breeds, aged 12 ± 2 years and weighing 10 ± 6.5 kg requiring total unilateral or bilateral mastectomy. METHODS: Dogs were premedicated with acepromazine (0.04 mg kg(-1) ) and morphine (0.4 mg kg(-1) ) intramuscularly. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2.5 mg kg(-1) ) and midazolam (0.2 mg kg(-1) ) intravenously, followed by intubation and maintenance with isoflurane and TLA. Dogs were randomly allocated to receive TLA either with 0.1% ropivacaine (group G1) or with 0.05% ropivacaine (group G05). TLA was performed by insertion of a multihole needle under the skin and infusion of ropivacaine and lactated Ringer's solution at a fixed volume of 15 mL kg(-1) . Ropivacaine concentrations in arterial blood were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Post-operative pain was assessed using two scales (University of Melbourne pain scale and a modified composite measure pain scale) and von Frey filaments, 4 hours after TLA and at 1 hour intervals until sensitivity was regained. A score above 30% of the maximum possible score was considered a positive indicator of pain. RESULTS: Peak plasma concentrations of ropivacaine were measured 240 minutes after TLA in G1. Low concentrations were measured in G05 for 60 minutes, with subsequent increase. Analgesic rescue and return of sensitivity occurred at 7 ± 2.3 and 7 ± 1.9 hours (mean ± SD) after TLA for G1 and G05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tumescent local anesthesia with ropivacaine provided satisfactory post-operative analgesia that lasted for several hours, with no difference in duration between the concentrations. No serious side effects were attributed to TLA. Results indicated that 0.05% ropivacaine provided adequate analgesia for mastectomy, however, more studies are required to support this conclusion.