Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Pain relief effects of joint lidocaine and dexmedetomidine in dogs
By Brioschi, F A et al.·Published in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997)·2021·Ospedale Veterinario San Francesco, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Clinical effects of preemptive intra-articular lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine-dexmedetomidine administration in dogs undergoing arthroscopy.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 24 dogs undergoing arthroscopy received different pain relief treatments: lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, or a combination of both. The combination treatment provided better pain control during surgery, but it also led to more heart rhythm issues compared to the other treatments. After the surgery, all three treatments had similar effects on pain relief, meaning they all worked well enough for managing discomfort afterward. Overall, while the combination of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine was effective during the procedure, pet owners should be aware of the potential for heart issues.
People also search for: dog surgery pain relief options · lidocaine vs dexmedetomidine for dogs · dog heart problems after surgery
Abstract
This study investigated the perioperative effects of preemptive intra-articular lidocaine (L group), dexmedetomidine (D group) and lidocaine-dexmedetomidine (LD group) in dogs. Physiological variables were intraoperatively recorded at 5 min intervals starting from baseline (5 min before intra-articular injection). If nociception occurred, IV fentanyl was administered. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale. Twenty-four dogs (eight in each group) were included in this prospective, randomized, masked clinical study. In the LD group, systolic arterial pressure significantly increased at T10 (P = 0.027), T15 (P = 0.021) and T20 (P = 0.022), compared with baseline. In the D and LD groups, mean arterial pressure significantly increased at T10 (P = 0.022; 0.024), T15 (P = 0.024; 0.09) and T20 (P = 0.019; 0.021), compared with baseline and diastolic arterial pressure significantly increased at T10 (P = 0.026; 0.047), T15 (P = 0.021; 0.023), T20 (P = 0.011; 0.012) and T25 (P = 0.019; 0.027), compared with baseline. In the LD group, heart rate significantly decreased at T5 (P = 0.031), T10 (P = 0.026) and T15 (P = 0.034), compared with baseline. Atrioventricular blocks appeared more frequently in the LD group than in L and D groups (P = 0.002). Group L received more fentanyl than the D and LD groups (P = 0.03). No differences in postoperative pain score were detected (P = 0.121). These findings suggested systemic absorption of intra-articular dexmedetomidine. Intra-articular lidocaine-dexmedetomidine was associated with a greater incidence of atrioventricular blocks. Intra-articular dexmedetomidine, alone and combined with lidocaine, provided better intraoperative analgesia than lidocaine in dogs undergoing arthroscopy, although the 12 h postoperative analgesic effect of the three treatments was similar.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34391917/