Questionnaire on the process of recovering horses from general anesthesia and associated personnel injury in equine practice.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To collect data about the current practice of recovering horses from general anesthesia and recovery personnel safety. STUDY DESIGN: Online survey. METHODS: An online questionnaire, including questions on general demographic data, recovery drugs, modality and characteristics of equine recovery and morbidity and mortality, was designed and distributed via e-mail to equine practitioners worldwide. RESULTS: Practitioners from 22 countries completed 373 questionnaires; 53% of the participants were board-certified equine surgeons, and the remainder were board-certified anesthesiologists (18%), large animal residents (8%), general practitioners (7%), large animal interns (6%), anesthesia residents (4.5%) and veterinary technicians (1.6%). Respondents were employed by academia (58%) or private practice (42%). Of the respondents employed at a university, 93% had a board-certified anesthesiologist on staff compared with 7% of respondents employed at a private practice. Most of the respondents assist horses during recovery, with 23% assisting every recovery and 44% assisting recovery in the majority of cases. Reasons for choosing to assist horses during recovery were orthopedic procedures (57%), neurological deficits (49%), bad health (47%), history of poor recovery (44%), foals (42%), draft breeds (30%), magnetic resonance imaging (17%) and computed tomography (16%). Unacceptable recoveries were reported by 77% of participants. Commonly reported complications during recovery with any method were orthopedic injury (66%), myopathy (54%), skin abrasion (53%) and airway obstruction (37%). The incidences of unacceptable quality of recovery (p = 0.09) or personnel injury (p = 0.56) were not different between assisted and nonassisted recoveries; however, more equine fatalities were reported for assisted recoveries (p < 0.006). Practitioners in academia reported more unacceptable recoveries (p < 0.0007) and personnel injuries (p < 0.002) compared with those in private practice. CONCLUSIONS: The method of recovery differs among hospitals. Recovery personnel injuries associated with assisting horses during recovery are an important and previously unreported finding.