Results of preemptive epidural administration of morphine with or without bupivacaine in dogs and cats undergoing surgery: 265 cases (1997–1999)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence of adverse effects associated with epidural administration of morphine with or without bupivacaine in dogs and cats undergoing surgery and evaluate effects of epidural administration of morphine on postoperative pain severity. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 242 dogs and 23 cats. PROCEDURE: Morphine with or without bupivacaine was administered prior to surgery with a Tuohy needle, spinal needle, or epidural catheter. In 18 dogs that underwent surgery twice, results of preemptive epidural administration of morphine with or without bupivacaine were compared with results of systemic administration of oxymorphone and ketoprofen. RESULTS: The delivered fraction of isoflurane was significantly lower in animals given morphine and bupivacaine than in animals given morphine alone. Analgesia was of significantly longer duration in dogs given morphine and bupivacaine than in dogs given morphine alone. During anesthesia, mild respiratory and cardiovascular depression was reported. Seven dogs and 2 cats had urine retention, and 2 dogs developed pruritus. Six dogs vomited when a second dose of morphine was given epidurally the day after surgery. Eight of 72 dogs had delayed hair growth. In 18 dogs that underwent surgery twice, the delivered fraction of isoflurane was significantly lower and the duration of analgesia was significantly longer when morphine with or without bupivacaine was given epidurally than when oxymorphone and ketoprofen were given. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that preemptive epidural administration of morphine with or without bupivacaine is a safe and effective method of inducing long-lasting analgesia in dogs and cats and is superior to standard management of postoperative pain with repeated injection of oxymorphone and ketoprofen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".