The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block

Carolyn M. McKune, Peter J Pascoe, B. Duncan X Lascelles, Philip H Kass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a local anesthetic line block administered before surgery in reducing postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVHX). Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial involving 59 healthy female dogs. An algometric pressure-measuring device was used to determine nociceptive threshold, and compared to three subjective pain scales. Group L/B received a line block of lidocaine (4 mg/kg) and bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) subcutaneously in the area of the incision site and saline subcutaneously as premedication; group L/BM (positive control) received a similar block and morphine (0.5 mg/kg) subcutaneously for premedication; and group SS (negative control) received a saline line block and saline premedication. Criteria for rescue analgesia were defined before the study. Dogs were assessed prior to surgery, at extubation (time 0) and at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h post-recovery. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and a Split Plot RepeatedMeasures ANOVA with one grouping factor and one repeat factor (time). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Approximately 33% of dogs required rescue analgesia at some point during the study, with no significant difference between groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with any assessment method. Conclusions: As there were no statistically significant differences between positive and negative controls, the outcome of this technique cannot be proven.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere341
JournalPeerJ
Volume2014
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

local anesthetics
Local Anesthetics
Premedication
pain
Dogs
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Pain
Surgery
dogs
analgesia
Analgesia
Analysis of Variance
surgery
analysis of variance
Bupivacaine
Lidocaine
Morphine
lidocaine
measuring devices
spaying

Keywords

  • Bupivacaine
  • Dog
  • Lidocaine
  • Local anesthesia
  • Pain assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block. / McKune, Carolyn M.; Pascoe, Peter J; Lascelles, B. Duncan X; Kass, Philip H.

In: PeerJ, Vol. 2014, No. 1, e341, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McKune, Carolyn M. ; Pascoe, Peter J ; Lascelles, B. Duncan X ; Kass, Philip H. / The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block. In: PeerJ. 2014 ; Vol. 2014, No. 1.
@article{ba44e87164a04b6bbf425de326bbbf9f,
title = "The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block",
abstract = "Background: Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a local anesthetic line block administered before surgery in reducing postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVHX). Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial involving 59 healthy female dogs. An algometric pressure-measuring device was used to determine nociceptive threshold, and compared to three subjective pain scales. Group L/B received a line block of lidocaine (4 mg/kg) and bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) subcutaneously in the area of the incision site and saline subcutaneously as premedication; group L/BM (positive control) received a similar block and morphine (0.5 mg/kg) subcutaneously for premedication; and group SS (negative control) received a saline line block and saline premedication. Criteria for rescue analgesia were defined before the study. Dogs were assessed prior to surgery, at extubation (time 0) and at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h post-recovery. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and a Split Plot RepeatedMeasures ANOVA with one grouping factor and one repeat factor (time). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Approximately 33{\%} of dogs required rescue analgesia at some point during the study, with no significant difference between groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with any assessment method. Conclusions: As there were no statistically significant differences between positive and negative controls, the outcome of this technique cannot be proven.",
keywords = "Bupivacaine, Dog, Lidocaine, Local anesthesia, Pain assessment",
author = "McKune, {Carolyn M.} and Pascoe, {Peter J} and Lascelles, {B. Duncan X} and Kass, {Philip H}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.7717/peerj.341",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2014",
journal = "PeerJ",
issn = "2167-8359",
publisher = "PeerJ",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The challenge of evaluating pain and a pre-incisional local anesthetic block

AU - McKune, Carolyn M.

AU - Pascoe, Peter J

AU - Lascelles, B. Duncan X

AU - Kass, Philip H

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background: Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a local anesthetic line block administered before surgery in reducing postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVHX). Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial involving 59 healthy female dogs. An algometric pressure-measuring device was used to determine nociceptive threshold, and compared to three subjective pain scales. Group L/B received a line block of lidocaine (4 mg/kg) and bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) subcutaneously in the area of the incision site and saline subcutaneously as premedication; group L/BM (positive control) received a similar block and morphine (0.5 mg/kg) subcutaneously for premedication; and group SS (negative control) received a saline line block and saline premedication. Criteria for rescue analgesia were defined before the study. Dogs were assessed prior to surgery, at extubation (time 0) and at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h post-recovery. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and a Split Plot RepeatedMeasures ANOVA with one grouping factor and one repeat factor (time). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Approximately 33% of dogs required rescue analgesia at some point during the study, with no significant difference between groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with any assessment method. Conclusions: As there were no statistically significant differences between positive and negative controls, the outcome of this technique cannot be proven.

AB - Background: Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a local anesthetic line block administered before surgery in reducing postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVHX). Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial involving 59 healthy female dogs. An algometric pressure-measuring device was used to determine nociceptive threshold, and compared to three subjective pain scales. Group L/B received a line block of lidocaine (4 mg/kg) and bupivacaine (1 mg/kg) subcutaneously in the area of the incision site and saline subcutaneously as premedication; group L/BM (positive control) received a similar block and morphine (0.5 mg/kg) subcutaneously for premedication; and group SS (negative control) received a saline line block and saline premedication. Criteria for rescue analgesia were defined before the study. Dogs were assessed prior to surgery, at extubation (time 0) and at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h post-recovery. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and a Split Plot RepeatedMeasures ANOVA with one grouping factor and one repeat factor (time). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Approximately 33% of dogs required rescue analgesia at some point during the study, with no significant difference between groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with any assessment method. Conclusions: As there were no statistically significant differences between positive and negative controls, the outcome of this technique cannot be proven.

KW - Bupivacaine

KW - Dog

KW - Lidocaine

KW - Local anesthesia

KW - Pain assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899083995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899083995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7717/peerj.341

DO - 10.7717/peerj.341

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84899083995

VL - 2014

JO - PeerJ

JF - PeerJ

SN - 2167-8359

IS - 1

M1 - e341

ER -