Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Liposomal bupivacaine does not raise infection risk after dog anal
By Goldblatt, Benjamin H & Tremolada, Giovanni·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2025·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Liposomal bupivacaine use is not associated with a higher rate of surgical site infections or multidrug-resistant infections in dogs undergoing anal sacculectomy.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs undergoing anal sacculectomy (surgery to remove the anal sacs) was studied to see if using liposomal bupivacaine (a pain relief medication) increased the risk of surgical site infections. Out of 105 dogs, about 17% developed infections, with similar rates in those who received the medication and those who did not. The most common bacteria found were E. coli and Enterococcus, with some showing resistance to multiple drugs. Overall, using liposomal bupivacaine did not raise the risk of infections after surgery, suggesting it is safe for pain management in these cases.
People also search for: dog anal sac surgery infection · liposomal bupivacaine for dogs · dog surgery pain management
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe whether infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a risk factor for the development of surgical site infection (SSI) in anal sacculectomy (AS) and compare bacterial isolates from SSIs in animals that received LB and those that did not. METHODS: A medical record review was performed at Colorado State University for dogs undergoing AS between August 2019 and October 2024. Data retrieved included signalment, reason for AS, anesthesia time, additional procedure performed, perioperative and postoperative antibiotic administration, use of LB, development of SSI, and bacterial isolates. RESULTS: The study population included 105 dogs that underwent a total of 121 ASs. In 18 of 105 cases (17.1%), SSI was noted. For the cases where LB was infiltrated intraoperatively, the rate of SSI was 17.5% (11 of 63). In cases where LB was not used, the rate of SSI was 16.7% (7 of 42). The most common bacterial isolates were Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. Of the 10 cultures, 8 had resistance profiles and 2 of 8 (25%) were found to have multidrug-resistant bacteria present, with no difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show that LB was a significant risk factor for the development of SSI or multidrug-resistant infections. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Incisional infiltration of LB does not seem to be associated with a higher rate of SSI or higher rates of multidrug-resistant infections in dogs undergoing AS.
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/39919374/