4.1 Article

Comparison of peribulbar and retrobulbar regional anesthesia with bupivacaine in cats

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 75, 期 12, 页码 1029-1039

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.75.12.1029

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To compare effectiveness and complications associated with peribulbar and retrobulbar anesthesia with bupivacaine in cats. Animals-6 healthy adult cats. Procedures-Cats were sedated with dexmedetomidine and received a peribulbar injection of 0.5% bupivacaine (1.5 mL), iopamidol (0.5 mL), and saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (1 mL) or retrobulbar injection of 0.5% bupivacaine (0.75 mL) and iopamidol (0.25 mL) in a crossover study with >= 2 weeks between treatments. The contralateral eye was the control. Injectate distribution was evaluated with CT. After atipamezole administration, periocular and corneal sensations, intraocular pressure (IOP), and ocular reflexes and appearance were evaluated for 24 hours. Results-All peribulbar and 3 of 6 retrobulbar injections resulted in CT evidence of intraconal injectate. Corneal sensation and periocular skin sensation were absent or significantly reduced relative to that for control eyes for 3 hours after peribulbar injection. Mean +/- SD IOP immediately after injection was significantly higher for eyes with peribulbar injections (33 +/- 12 mm Hg) than for control eyes or eyes with retrobulbar injections (both 14 +/- 4 mm Hg) but 10 minutes later decreased to 18 +/- 3 mm Hg. Exophthalmos, chemosis, and ptosis were evident in most injected eyes, and irritation was evident in 3 of 6 peribulbar-injected and 1 of 6 retrobulbar-injected eyes. All conditions resolved within 14 hours. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Peribulbar injection resulted in intraconal deposition of bupivicaine in a higher percentage of cats than did retrobulbar injection and induced notable anesthesia relative to that for the control eye; however, IOP increased temporarily.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据