Avaliação do pós-operatório de cadelas submetidas a ovariohisterectomia utilizando infiltração intraovariana de lidocaína

• Autor(a) principal: Fujimoto, Thaís Ayumi Stedile
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFU
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/26882; http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2019.2102
• topic: Esterilização; Analgesia; Ovário; Sterilization; Analgesia; Ovary; Veterinária; CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::MEDICINA VETERINARIA

Surgical sterilization has been widely used for population control and also as treatment and prevention of reproductive disorders in small animals. The ovariohysterectomy is a surgical procedure that cause mild to moderate pain and for its accomplishment it is necessary to use a satisfactory protocol that promotes good analgesia and anesthesia. The infiltrative anesthetics are considered the most secure and reliable, the most commonly used drug in routine has been lidocaine because your efficiency and low cost. Based on this, the aim of this is study was to evaluate the analgesic potential of intraovariana infiltration using lidocaine during conventional ovariohysterectomy, through evaluations postoperative pain using the University Melbourne Pain Scale (UMPS) at different times of postoperative recovery. For this, twelve healthy dogs were sterilized, 6 of them received intraovarian lidocaine infiltration before ligation and incision of the ovarian pedicle (Lidocaine group) and other 6 didn’t receive this treatment (Control group). Acepromazine and tramadol were used in the preanesthetic medication, propofol was used for induction, isoflurane was used for maintenance and meloxicam and dipyrone were used in the postoperative. The animals were evaluated before the beginning of the manipulation for pre-anesthetic medication (T0) and after the end of the surgical accomplishment at 3h (T3), 6h (T6), 12h (T12), 24h (T24) and 48h (T48), through UMPS. It was observed that the parameters of heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, salivation, dilated pupils, response to palpation, activity, posture and vocalization of the animals were statistically similar when compared to the Control group and the Lidocaine group, mental and total score scale used demonstrated difference, being higher in the Control group, evidencing greater discomfort in these animals. In the Control group, a statistical difference was observed between the different moments of body temperature, activity and total UMPS, but the Lidocaine group showed differences in their moments only in body temperature and posture, demonstrating that the animals in the Control group obtained more variations. Finally, it was observed that both groups at no time of analysis exceeded the minimum UMPS, suggesting that no animal presented relevant pain status. However, we suggest more studies with a larger number of animals, with other forms of pain evaluation, as well as intraoperative evaluations of different parameters.