Fifty‐four rabbits that were to be neutered were premedicated with 0.1 ml/kg fentanyl/fluanisone and then randomly allocated to be anaesthetised with either midazolam or propofol. Anaesthesia was then maintained with isoflurane. The ease of orotracheal intubation, the rabbits' cardiorespiratory variables, and the speed and quality of recovery from anaesthesia were assessed by the same anaesthetist who was unaware of the induction agent used. Hypotension was common in both groups. The mean (sd) respiratory rates were 30 (12) breaths per minute in the midazolam group and 43 (15) breaths per minute in the propofol group. The mean (sd) time to first head lift was 36 (21) minutes in the midazolam group and 14 (11) minutes in the propofol group, and the mean (sd) times to the return of the righting reflex were 35 (19) minutes and 15 (eight) minutes, respectively. The quality of recovery was better in the propofol group than in the midazolam group.

The choice of what to feed is a significant decision for a pet owner and is complicated by the vast array of choices that are available. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feeding choices and practices of UK dog and cat owners. An online survey was conducted in which owners were asked about their feeding practices, what they look for in pet food, and purchasing habits, as well as collecting owner demographics and pet signalment information. A total of 520 responses were collected for 682 dogs and cats (572 dogs and 110 cats), with most owners only having one pet. Significantly more cats were fed a mix of wet and dry food or solely wet food, while significantly more dogs were fed raw food. Most owners feed their pets twice a day in a standard bowl and obtain nutritional information online. Furthermore, the most common way to purchase their food is online. There are differences between cat and dog owners feeding choices, with cat owners staying with more traditional methods and more dog owners choosing raw or alternative feeding. Raw feeding has increased in popularity compared to previous studies.

PICO question In horses undergoing general anaesthesia, does assistance with ropes result in better recoveries when compared to no assistance (‘free’ recovery)? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed One randomised, non-blinded controlled trial and two retrospective cohort studies Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported The three studies reviewed arrive at different conclusions regarding the utility of rope assistance in recovery from general anaesthesia in horses, but examine very different populations. The randomised controlled trial provides weak evidence that rope assistance can shorten recovery and improve recovery quality in healthy (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I–II) horses. One retrospective cohort study provides weak evidence that rope assistance confers a reduction in fatality in both healthy and sick horses. The other retrospective cohort study provides weak evidence that rope assistance confers no benefit to horses undergoing emergency colic surgery. Both assisted and unassisted groups in each study had fatalities and all studies reported complications related to the rope recovery system Conclusion Insufficient evidence is available to permit a full recommendation regarding rope assistance during recovery from general anaesthesia in horses. Rope assistance may improve recovery time and quality in some horses. The decision to perform a rope-assisted recovery must be made considering individual patient, team and clinic factors. Rope assistance cannot prevent fatalities in recovery How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.

To investigate which breathing systems are available and why they are selected in dogs weighing 5-10 kg. Anonymous online voluntary open survey. An online survey, designed following CHERRIES guidelines, was advertised through the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists - List, Association of Veterinary Anaesthesia and European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia (February-March 2022). A convenience sample was taken. Of the 256 responses received, 138 were completed. This included (n responses received) veterinarians (107) and veterinary nurses or technicians (29) actively involved in the anaesthesia of dogs. The most prevalent breathing systems available to respondents were circle (99%), coaxial Bain (79%) and modified Ayre's T-piece (with adjustable pressure limiting valve) (72%). When recommending a dog weight range suitable for the use with these systems, respondents advised a median (interquartile range) from 5 (3-10) to 100 (100-100), 3 (0-8) to 20 (10-33) and 0 (0-0) to 10 (7-10) kg, respectively. Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that important factors in selecting a breathing system were the fresh gas flow requirement (92%), dog weight (91%), resistance (83%) and environmental pollution (79%). In clinical scenarios based on 5-10 kg dogs, the circle system was chosen by 58% for a thin and 77% for a keel-chested versus 44% for an obese and 66% for a barrel-chested dog, respectively. The circle system is the most commonly available breathing system. The minimum weight limit used for the circle system is less than that reported by previous surveys. Several factors influence the choice of breathing system other than dog weight.