Considering the widespread use of rabbits in research that potentially causes pain and discomfort and the limited number of pain assessment validated tools in this species, we aimed to develop and validate a scale of acute postoperative pain in rabbits (RPBS). Footage of 58 rabbits from previous studies were used, recorded at ‘baseline’(before orthopaedic and soft tissue surgeries), ‘pain’(after surgery), ‘analgesia’(after analgesic), and ‘24h post’(24 hours after surgery). The videos were randomised and assessed twice by four evaluators, within one-month interval between evaluations. After content validation, RBPS was further refined using the criteria from the validation. According to the principal component analysis, RPBS was considered unidimensional. The intra- and inter-observer reliability was excellent (ICC>0.80) for all evaluators. There was a high Spearman’s correlation of the RPBS with unidimensional scales (>0.80) and a moderate correlation with the Rabbit Grimace Scale (0.68), confirming criterion validity. According to the mixed linear model, the scale was responsive, shown by the increase in pain scores after surgery. Construct validity was confirmed by known-group approach and internal relationships among items. Adequate item-total correlation (>0.3) was observed for all items, except for the attention to the affected area (0.04). The internal consistency was very good (Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.78; Mcdonald’s ω coefficient = 0.83). The cut-off score for rescue analgesia was ≥3, with an area under the curve >0.95, demonstrating a high discriminatory capacity of the instrument. Scores 3 and 4 were within the uncertainty diagnostic zone. Specificity was 87% and sensitivity was 90%. It was concluded that the RPBS presented content, criterion, and construct validities, responsiveness, and reliability to assess acute pain in rabbits submitted to orthopaedic and soft tissue surgeries. The cut-off for rescue analgesia serves as a basis for the administration of analgesics to rabbits submitted to painful procedures.

To provide an overview of medication errors (MEs) in veterinary medicine, with a focus on the perianesthetic period; to compare MEs in veterinary medicine with human anesthesia practice, and to describe factors contributing to the risk of MEs and strategies for error reduction. PubMed and CAB abstracts; search terms: [("patient safety" or "medication error∗") AND veterin∗]. Human anesthesia is recognized as having a relatively high risk of MEs. In veterinary medicine, MEs were among the most commonly reported medical error. Predisposing factors for MEs in human and veterinary anesthesia include general (e.g. distraction, fatigue, workload, supervision) and specific factors (e.g. requirement for dose calculations when dosing for body mass, using several medications within a short time period and preparing syringes ahead of time). Data on MEs are most commonly collected in self-reporting systems, which very likely underestimate the true incidence, a problem acknowledged in human medicine. Case reports have described a variety of MEs in the perianesthetic period, including prescription, preparation and administration errors. Dogs and cats were the most frequently reported species, with MEs in cats more commonly associated with harmful outcomes compared with dogs. In addition to education and raising awareness, other strategies described for reducing the risk of MEs include behavioral, communication, identification, organizational, engineering and cognitive aids.

We aimed to develop and validate the Unesp-Botucatu goat acute pain scale (UGAPS). Thirty goats (5 negative controls and 25 submitted to orchiectomy) were filmed for 7 min at the time points 24 h before and 2 h, 3 h (1 h after analgesia), and 24 h after orchiectomy. After content validation, according to an ethogram and literature, four blind observers analyzed the videos randomly to score the UGAPS, repeating the same assessment in 30 days. According to the confirmatory factor analysis, the UGAPS is unidimensional. Intra- and interobserver reliability was very good for all raters (Intraclass correlation coefficient ≥85%). Spearman’s correlation between UGAPS versus VAS was 0.85 confirming the criterion validity. Internal consistency was 0.60 for Cronbach’s α Cronbach and 0.67 for McDonald’s ω. The item-total correlation was acceptable for 80% of the items (0.3–0.7). Specificity and sensitivity based on the cut-off point were 99% and 90%, respectively. The scale was responsive and demonstrated construct validity shown by the increase and decrease of scores after surgery pain and analgesia, respectively. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia is ≥3 of 10, with an area under the curve of 95.27%. The UGAPS presents content, criterion, and construct validities, responsiveness, and reliability to assess postoperative pain in castrated goats.

We aimed to validate the CMPS-SF according to COSMIN and GRADE guidelines. Four trained evaluators assessed 208 videos (pre-operative-M1, peak of pain-M2, 1 h after the peak of pain and analgesia (rescue)-M3, and 24 h post-extubation-M4) of 52 dogs, divided into negative controls (n = 10), soft tissue surgeries (n = 22), and orthopedic surgeries (n = 20). The videos were randomized and blinded as to when they were filmed, and were evaluated in two stages, 21 days apart. According to confirmatory analysis, the CMPS-SF is a unidimensional scale. Intra-observer reliability was between 0.80 and 0.99 and inter-observer reliability between 0.73 and 0.86. Criterion validity was confirmed by the correlation between the CMPS-SF and other unidimensional scales (≥0.7). The differences between the scores were M2 ≥ M3 > M4 > M1 (responsiveness), and the scale presented construct validity (higher postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing surgery versus control). Internal consistency was 0.7 (Cronbach’s α) and 0.77 (McDonald’s ω), and the item-total correlation was between 0.3 and 0.7, except for “A(ii)—Attention to wound”. Specificity and sensitivity were 78–87% and 74–83%, respectively. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥5 or ≥4 excluding item B(iii) mobility, and the GRADE classification was high, confirming the validity of the scale.

OBJECTIVE To assess pulmonary hemodynamics and alveolar oxygenation in dogs anesthetized with propofol or isoflurane during one-lung ventilation (OLV) in a closed-thoracic experimental model. ANIMALS 6 healthy Beagles. PROCEDURES Dogs were anesthetized with each of 3 protocols (constant rate IV infusion of propofol [0.4 to 1.0 mg/kg/min], isoflurane at the minimum alveolar concentration [MAC], and isoflurane 1.5 MAC), with a 7-day washout period between anesthetic sessions. During each session, dogs were intubated with a double-lumen endotracheal tube, positioned in right lateral recumbency, and administered atracurium (0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg, IV, q 30 min) to allow mechanical ventilation throughout a 2-hour observation period. Dogs underwent two-lung ventilation for 30 minutes, OLV of the right lung for 1 hour, and two-lung ventilation for another 30 minutes. Pulmonary hemodynamic and blood gas variables were evaluated at predetermined times and compared among protocols and over time within each protocol. RESULTS Alveolar oxygenation was not impaired, and mean heart rate and pulmonary artery pressure and occlusion pressure were similar among the 3 protocols. One-lung ventilation caused a significant increase in the arteriovenous shunt fraction only when dogs were anesthetized with isoflurane at 1.5 MAC. Dogs developed respiratory acidosis, which was exacerbated by OLV, during all anesthetic sessions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated pulmonary hemodynamics and alveolar oxygenation during OLV in a closed-thoracic model were similar regardless of whether dogs were anesthetized with propofol or isoflurane. One-lung ventilation can be successfully performed in dogs by use of a double-lumen endotracheal tube and either propofol or isoflurane.

To assess sedation following intramuscular (IM) administration of medetomidine versus medetomidine-vatinoxan in bearded dragons. Prospective, randomized, experimental, crossover study. A group of 10 (five males and five females) bearded dragons (mean mass ± standard deviation 172 ± 28 g). All animals were administered both medetomidine (0.2 mg kg^-1) (MED) and medetomidine (0.2 mg kg^-1)-vatinoxan (4 mg kg^-1) (MED-VAT) IM, with a 14-16 day washout period between treatments. Sedation was assessed using an adapted version of a sedation scale for bearded dragons (scale range 0-12) before (T0), and every 5 minutes from 10 to 45 minutes after treatment administration (T10-T45). Sedation scores were compared: 1) between time points (within treatments) using a Friedman test and Dunn's post hoc test; and 2) between treatments at each time point using a Wilcoxon paired test. Heart rate and respiratory rate (f_R) were analyzed descriptively. At T45, atipamezole was administered IM. Compared with T0, sedation scores were significantly higher at most time points for both treatments. Highest median (range) scores occurred at T30 for MED [T0, 0 (0-0); T30, 2.5 (1-5); p = 0.0001] and at T35 and T40 for MED-VAT [T0, 0 (0-0); T35, 2 (1-5); p = 0.002; T40, 2 (1-5); p = 0.001]. No significant differences in sedation scores were identified between treatments at any time point. The two protocols caused bradycardia and reduction in f_R. All animals were active and ate 1 hour after reversal administration. Both medetomidine and medetomidine-vatinoxan caused similar mild sedation in bearded dragons (median < 3/12). Inclusion of vatinoxan did not enhance sedation in this species.