OBJECTIVE To compare sedative and mechanical hypoalgesic effects of sublingual administration of 2 doses of detomidine gel to donkeys. DESIGN Randomized blinded controlled trial. ANIMALS 6 healthy castrated male donkeys. PROCEDURES In a crossover study design, donkeys received each of the following sublingual treatments 1 week apart in a randomly assigned order: 1 mL of molasses (D0) or detomidine hydrochloride gel at 20 μg/kg (9 μg/lb; D20) or 40 μg/kg (18 μg/lb; D40). Sedation score (SS), head height above the ground (HHAG), and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) were assessed before and for 180 minutes after treatment. Areas under the effect change-versus-time curves (AUCs) from 0 to 30, 30 to 60, 60 to 120, and 120 to 180 minutes after administration were computed for SS, HHAG, and MNT and compared among treatments. RESULTS D20 and D40 resulted in greater SS AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes and smaller HHAG AUCs from 30 through 180 minutes than did D0. The D40 resulted in smaller HHAG AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes than did D20. Compared with D0 values, MNT AUCs from 60 to 120 minutes were higher for D20, whereas MNT AUCs from 30 through 180 minutes were higher for D40. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE D20 and D40 induced sedation and mechanical hypoalgesia in donkeys by > 30 minutes after administration, but only sedation was dose dependent. Sublingual administration of detomidine gel at 40 μg/kg may be useful for sedation of standing donkeys prior to potentially painful minor procedures.

Umbilical hernias in calves occur with relative frequency. Most abdominal surgeries can be performed in cattle using standing sedation and local blocks. Romifidine is widely used in calves, alone or in combination with opioids. Tramadol administered as an intravenous slow injection provided better analgesia than an IV bolus in cows. The aim of the present study was to compare the response to surgical stimulus, and sedative effects of tramadol administered intravenously either as a bolus or a slow injection in romifidinesedated calves. Twenty Frisian calves undergoing umbilical hernia repair received romifidine (0.08 mg/kg IM; time 0) followed by tramadol (1 mg/kg IV) 5 min later either as a bolus (n = 10, B group) or a slow injection over 10 min (n = 10, SI group). Surgical area was infiltrated with lidocaine (4 mg/kg). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic, dyastolic and mean arterial pressure (SAP, DAP, MAP), sedation scores and response to surgical stimulus were recorded for up to 55 min. After the calves recovered a standing position, postoperative pain scores were assessed for up to 50 min. Sedation scores were significantly higher in the SI group than in the B group at 55 min (p < 0.05). HR, RR, SAP and response to surgical stimulus were significantly higher in the B group than in the SI group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were recorded in postoperative pain scores between groups (p > 0.05). Romifidine IM followed by intravenous tramadol, as a bolus or slow injection and local infiltration with lidocaine provided adequate sedation and analgesia in calves undergoing umbilical hernia repair.

Background To compare the utility of a targeted smartphone application (TSPA) with a non-programmable calculator (NPC) when calculating fluid drip rates (FDR) and constant rate infusions (CRIs). Methods In a prospective randomised clinical study, 48 fourth-year veterinary students entered one of four parallel groups involving two mock scenarios: fentanyl calculation using an NPC followed by lidocaine calculation using a TSPA, fentanyl (TSPA) followed by lidocaine (NPC), lidocaine (NPC) followed by fentanyl (TSPA) or lidocaine (TSPA) followed by fentanyl (NPC). Students calculated volume of drug added to maintenance fluids and drops/second that correctly administered the drug dose and FDR. Time to completion was assessed using an analysis of variance. A Fisher’s exact test assessed the effect of study period, scenario and device in the proportion of correct/incorrect answers. Results Participants took longer to complete the scenarios in period 1 and 2 with the NPC (380.7±195.6 seconds and 488±154.8 seconds, respectively) than the TSPA (247.5±88.8 seconds and 224±94.2 seconds, respectively) (P<0.0031 and P<0.0001). Participants were more likely to complete the scenarios incorrectly with the NPC (n=32) when compared with the TSPA (n=7) (P<0.0001). Conclusions TSPAs are more efficient and accurate when calculating CRIs and FDR compared with conventional methods. Medical mathematics must be emphasised during the veterinary curriculum.