Dataset Information

Reported analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It has become widely accepted that whenever animals are used in scientific procedures, the 3Rs principle of replacement, reduction and refinement described by William Russell and Rex Burch should be adhered to. Animals should be replaced with non-sentient alternatives if possible, the number of animals used should be reduced and experimental procedures should be refined to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Administration of analgesic agents to animals undergoing surgical procedures is a refinement used to alleviate pain. In this study, a structured literature review was carried out to examine current trends in analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures.

Results

128 papers from 51 peer-reviewed journals were selected for inclusion in this review. Reporting administration of systemic analgesia to rabbits in peer-reviewed scientific papers increased significantly from 16% to 50% between 1995-1997 and 2005-2007 (P < 0.001). Papers that reported ethical approval were more likely than papers that did not specify approval to report systemic analgesic administration (P < 0.001). When systemic analgesics were administered, buprenorphine was the most frequently used agent and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used less frequently than opioids in both time periods.

Conclusions

Although this review provides evidence that systemic analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing surgical procedures is increasing, rabbits do not always receive analgesia when they undergo experimental surgery. Other practices in rabbit perioperative care that could be improved, highlighted by this survey include: 1) changing the timing of analgesic administration by giving systemic analgesics pre- or perioperatively rather than only postoperatively, 2) using multimodal analgesia when pain is likely to be moderate to severe and 3) increasing the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and use of other techniques such as epidural analgesia particularly for orthopaedic procedures.

SUBMITTER: Coulter CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3058034 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reported analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures.

Coulter Claire A CA Flecknell Paul A PA Leach Matthew C MC Richardson Claire A CA

BMC veterinary research 20110221

<h4>Background</h4>It has become widely accepted that whenever animals are used in scientific procedures, the 3Rs principle of replacement, reduction and refinement described by William Russell and Rex Burch should be adhered to. Animals should be replaced with non-sentient alternatives if possible, the number of animals used should be reduced and experimental procedures should be refined to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Administration of analgesic agents to animals undergoing surgical ...[more]

PMID: 21338514

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The creation of a single patient-reported outcome (PRO) platform validated across hip preservation, osteoarthritis (OA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) populations may reduce barriers and streamline the routine collection of PROs in clinical practice. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine if augmenting the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) with additional HOOS questions would result in a PRO platform that could be used across a wider spectrum of hip patient populations. HYPOTHESIS:The HOOS, JR would demonstrate a notable ceiling effect, but by augmenting the HOOS, JR with additional HOOS questions, a responsive PRO platform could be created. STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS:Using preoperative and postoperative HOOS responses from a sample of 304 patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), additional items were identified to augment the HOOS, JR. The psychometric properties of a newly created PRO tool (HOOSglobal) were then compared with the HOOS, JR and other PRO instruments developed for patients with hip OA and/or undergoing THA. RESULTS:By augmenting the HOOS, JR with 2 additional questions, the HOOSglobal was more responsive than all other included PRO tools and had significantly fewer maximum postoperative scores than the HOOS, JR ( P < .0001), HOOS-Physical Function Short form ( P < .0001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index ( P = .02), University of California, Los Angeles activity scale ( P = .0002), and modified Harris Hip Score ( P = .04). The postoperative HOOSglobal score threshold associated with patients achieving the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was 62.5. CONCLUSION:The HOOSglobal is a valid and responsive PRO tool after PAO and may potentially provide the orthopaedic community with a PRO platform to be used across hip-related subspecialties. For patients undergoing PAO, a postoperative HOOSglobal score ≥62.5 was associated with patients achieving the PASS.

Project description:It has been suggested that longer-term postsurgical outcome may be adversely affected by less than severe hypotension under anesthesia. However, evidence-based guidelines are unavailable. The present study was designed to develop a method for identifying patients at increased risk of death within 30 days in association with the severity and duration of intraoperative hypotension.Intraoperative mean arterial blood pressure recordings of 152,445 adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were analyzed for periods of time accumulated below each one of the 31 thresholds between 75 and 45 mm Hg (hypotensive exposure times). In a development cohort of 35,904 patients, the associations were sought between each of these 31 cumulative hypotensive exposure times and 30-day postsurgical mortality. On the basis of covariable-adjusted percentage increases in the odds of mortality per minute elapsed of hypotensive exposure time, certain sets of exposure time limits were calculated that portended certain percentage increases in the odds of mortality. A novel risk-scoring method was conceived by counting the number of exposure time limits that had been exceeded within each respective set, one of them being called the SLUScore. The validity of this new method in identifying patients at increased risk was tested in a multicenter validation cohort consisting of 116,541 patients from Cleveland Clinic, Vanderbilt and Saint Louis Universities. Data were expressed as 95% confidence interval, P < .05 considered significant.Progressively greater hypotensive exposures were associated with greater 30-day mortality. In the development cohort, covariable-adjusted (age, Charlson score, case duration, history of hypertension) exposure limits were identified for time accumulated below each of the thresholds that portended certain identical (5%-50%) percentage expected increases in the odds of mortality. These exposure time limit sets were shorter in patients with a history of hypertension. A novel risk score, the SLUScore (range 0-31), was conceived as the number of exposure limits exceeded for one of these sets (20% set). A SLUScore > 0 (average 13.8) was found in 40% of patients who had twice the mortality, adjusted odds increasing by 5% per limit exceeded. When tested in the validation cohort, a SLUScore > 0 (average 14.1) identified 35% of patients who had twice the mortality, each incremental limit exceeded portending a 5% compounding increase in adjusted odds of mortality, independent of age and Charlson score (C = 0.73, 0.72-0.74, P < .05).The SLUScore represents a novel method for identifying nearly 1 in every 3 patients experiencing greater 30-day mortality portended by more severe intraoperative hypotensive exposures.

Project description:Study Design:Retrospective cohort study. Objective:As hospital compensation becomes increasingly dependent on pay-for-performance and bundled payment compensation models, hospitals seek to reduce costs and increase quality. To our knowledge, no reported data compare these measures between hospital settings for elective lumbar procedures. The study compares hospital-reported outcomes and costs for elective lumbar procedures performed at a tertiary hospital (TH) versus community hospitals (CH) within a single health care system. Methods:Retrospective review of a physician-maintained, prospectively collected database consisting of 1 TH and 4 CH for 3 common lumbar surgeries from 2015 to 2016. Patients undergoing primary elective microdiscectomy for disc herniation, laminectomy for spinal stenosis, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Patients were excluded for traumatic, infectious, or malignant pathology. Comparing hospital settings, outcomes included length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day readmissions, potentially preventable complications (PPC), and discharge to rehabilitation facility, and hospital costs. Results:A total of 892 patients (n = 217 microdiscectomies, n = 302 laminectomies, and n = 373 laminectomy fusions) were included. The TH served a younger patient population with fewer comorbid conditions and a higher proportion of African Americans. The TH performed more decompressions (P < .001) per level fused; the CH performed more interbody fusions (P = .007). Cost of performing microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy (P = .014) was significantly higher at the TH, but there was no significant difference for laminectomy with fusion. In a multivariable stepwise linear regression analysis, the TH was significantly more expensive for single-level microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy with single-level fusion (P < .001), but trended toward significance for laminectomy without fusion (P = .052). No difference existed for PPC or readmissions rate. Patients undergoing laminectomy without fusion were discharged to a facility more often at the TH (P = .019). Conclusions:We provide hospital-reported outcomes between a TH and CH. Significant differences in patient characteristics and surgical practices exist between surgical settings. Despite minimal differences in hospital-reported outcomes, the TH was significantly more expensive.

Project description:The management of patients who undergo dental surgical procedures and receive oral anticoagulant therapy requires particular attention due to the risk of bleeding that may occur during the procedure. Bleeding rates in these trans- or post-operative patients tend to be unpredictable. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review in order to assess the risk of bleeding during and after performing oral surgery in patients administered oral anticoagulants compared with a group that discontinued anticoagulant therapy. For the purposes of this review, we searched the databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), and the Virtual Health Library (VHL) from inception of the database to December 2018. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of local bleeding during and after oral surgical procedures. Four reviewers, independently and in pairs, screened titles and abstracts for full-text eligibility. Data regarding participant characteristics, interventions, and design and outcomes of the included studies were extracted. The data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses and described as risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The confidence for the pooled estimates was ascertained through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the protocol of this review was recorded in PROSPERO (CRD42017056986). A total of 58 eligible studies were identified, of which three randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, covering a total of 323 adult participants, among whom 167 were taking anticoagulants at the time they underwent dental surgery. Of these patients, 14.2% had reported bleeding. The risk of bleeding was found to be one to almost three times greater in patients taking warfarin compared with patients who discontinued the use of anticoagulant during the trans-operative period (RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 0.97 to 2.89) and in the post-operative period (RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.71 to 2.92), although the quality of evidence was very low. The results indicate that there is no evidence that the use of anticoagulants eliminates the risk of bleeding during surgical dental procedures.

Dataset Information

Reported analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures.

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reported analgesic administration to rabbits undergoing experimental surgical procedures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets