A randomized, prospective, masked clinical trial comparing an opioid-free vs. opioid-sparing anesthetic technique in adult cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of an injectable protocol using multimodal analgesia with or without opioids in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OVH). Thirty-two healthy cats were enrolled in a prospective, blinded, randomized trial after the caregiver's written consent. Cats received a combination of ketamine (4 mg/kg), midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) and dexmedetomidine (40 μg/kg), and either buprenorphine (20 μg/kg) or saline (same volume as buprenorphine) intramuscularly [opioid-sparing (OSA) and opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) groups, respectively]. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine 0.25% (2 mg/kg) and meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg subcutaneously) were administered before OVH. Atipamezole (400 μg/kg intramuscularly) was administered at the end of surgery. Pain and sedation were evaluated using the Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) and a dynamic interactive visual analog scale, respectively. Intravenous buprenorphine was administered as rescue analgesia if FGS scores ≥ 0.39/1. Statistical analysis included repeated measures linear mixed models, Fisher's exact test and Bonferroni adjustments when appropriate (p < 0.05). Twenty-seven cats were included. The prevalence of rescue analgesia was lower in OSA (n = 0/13) than in OFA (n = 5/14) (p = 0.04). The FGS scores (least square means and 95% CI) were higher in OFA at 1 [2.0 (1.3–2.7)] and 2 h [2.2 (1.5–2.9)] than baseline [0.7 (0.0–1.4)], but not in OSA. Sedation scores were not significantly different between groups. Opioid-free injectable anesthesia was appropriate for some cats using a multimodal approach. However, a single dose of intramuscular buprenorphine eliminated the need for rescue analgesia and assured adequate pain management after OVH in cats.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".