Assessing analgesia equivalence and appetite following alfaxalone- or ketamine-based injectable anesthesia for feline castration as an example of enhanced recovery after surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The primary study objective was to assess two injectable anesthetic protocols, given to facilitate castration surgery in cats, for equivalence in terms of postoperative analgesia. A secondary objective was to evaluate postoperative eating behavior. Methods Male cats presented to a local clinic were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ketamine (5 mg/kg, n = 26; KetHD) or alfaxalone (2 mg/kg, n = 24; AlfHD) in combination with dexmedetomidine (25 μg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.05 mg/kg). All cats received meloxicam (0.3 mg/kg SC) and intratesticular lidocaine (2 mg/kg). Species-specific pain and sedation scales were applied at baseline, 1, 2 and 4 h postoperatively. Time taken to achieve sternal recumbency and begin eating were also recorded postoperatively. Results Pain scale scores were low and showed equivalence between the treatment groups at all time points (1 h, P = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference between group scores 0-0; 2 h, P = 0.71, 95% CI 0-0; 4 h, P = 0.97, 95% CI 0-0). Four cats crossed the threshold for rescue analgesia (KetHD, n = 1; AlfHD, n = 3). At 1 h, more cats in the KetHD (65%) group than in the AlfHD (42%) group were sedated, but statistical significance was not detected ( P = 0.15, 95% CI -1 to 0). Most AlfHD cats (88%) began eating by 1 h vs 65% of KetHD cats ( P = 0.039). Time to recover sternal recumbency did not differ between groups ( P = 0.86, 95% CI -14.1 to 11.8). Conclusions and relevance These results show that AlfHD and KetHD provide equivalent analgesia as part of a multimodal injectable anesthetic protocol. Alfaxalone is associated with an earlier return to eating.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".