Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for
- Author or Editor: Guillaume R. Ragetly x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
Objective—To compare surgical site infection and inflammation rates between the use of nonimpregnated (polydioxanone and poliglecaprone 25) versus triclosan-impregnated (polydioxanone and poliglecaprone 25) suture for incisional closure in dogs undergoing a standardized orthopedic procedure (tibial plateau leveling osteotomy [TPLO]).
Design—Retrospective cohort study.
Animals—283 dogs that underwent TPLO between November 2005 and December 2009.
Procedures—Medical records were reviewed for age; body weight; body condition score; use of propofol; perioperative and postoperative administration of antimicrobials; presence of a preoperative infection; use of a jig; technique of joint exploration; type of suture material (triclosan impregnated vs nonimpregnated) used to close the pes anserinus, subcutaneous layer, and subcuticular layer; use of staples or suture to close the skin; and surgery and anesthesia durations. The outcome variables were surgical site inflammation and infection.
Results—Rates of infection and inflammation did not differ between surgeries for which triclosan-impregnated suture was used (n = 159 [8.8%, and 18.8%, respectively]) and those for which nonimpregnated suture was used (112 [10.7% and 15.2%, respectively]). The use of staples, compared with suture, to close the skin significantly decreased the inflammation rate.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Compared with in vitro conditions, in vivo conditions (where the environment is not controlled and triclosan may elute more quickly from the suture) may decrease the antibacterial effectiveness of triclosan-impregnated suture. On the basis of our findings, triclosan-impregnated sutures did not seem to provide an additional benefit for clinical use and cannot be strongly recommended for elective orthopedic procedures in veterinary medicine.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To characterize and investigate potential associations between causes of pleural effusion and various clinical factors in a large cohort of affected cats.
DESIGN Retrospective case series with nested cross-sectional study.
ANIMALS 380 client-owned cats with a diagnosis of pleural effusion from January 1, 2009, through July 14, 2014, for which the cause of pleural effusion had been fully investigated.
PROCEDURES Electronic medical records were reviewed and data collected regarding cat characteristics, clinical signs, cause of pleural effusion, treatment, and survival status at discharge from the hospital. Variables were examined for associations with causes of pleural effusion.
RESULTS 87 (22.9%) cats died or were euthanized before discharge from the hospital. Congestive heart failure (CHF) was the most common cause (155 [40.8%]) of pleural effusion, followed by neoplasia (98 [25.8%]). Other causes included pyothorax, idiopathic chylothorax, trauma, feline infectious peritonitis, and nontraumatic diaphragmatic hernia. Cats with trauma or feline infectious peritonitis were significantly younger than those with CHF or neoplasia. Cats with lymphoma were significantly younger than those with carcinoma. Cats with CHF had a significantly lower rectal temperature at hospital admission (mean ± SD, 36.9 ± 1.2°C [98.4 ± 2.2°F]) than did cats with pleural effusion from other causes (37.9 ± 1.2°C [100.2 ± 2.2°F]).
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Cats with pleural effusion in this study had a poor prognosis; CHF and neoplasia were common causes. Age and hypothermia may be helpful to raise the index of suspicion for certain underlying causes of pleural effusion in cats.
Abstract
Objective—To assess the clinical differences between induction of anesthesia in ball pythons with intracardiac administration of propofol and induction with isoflurane in oxygen and to assess the histologic findings over time in hearts following intracardiac administration of propofol.
Design—Prospective randomized study.
Animals—30 hatchling ball pythons (Python regius).
Procedures—Anesthesia was induced with intracardiac administration of propofol (10 mg/kg [4.5 mg/lb]) in 18 ball pythons and with 5% isoflurane in oxygen in 12 ball pythons. Induction time, time of anesthesia, and recovery time were recorded. Hearts from snakes receiving intracardiac administration of propofol were evaluated histologically 3, 7, 14, 30, and 60 days following propofol administration.
Results—Induction time with intracardiac administration of propofol was significantly shorter than induction time with 5% isoflurane in oxygen. No significant differences were found in total anesthesia time. Recovery following intracardiac administration of propofol was significantly longer than recovery following induction of anesthesia with isoflurane in oxygen. Heart tissue evaluated histologically at 3, 7, and 14 days following intracardiac administration of propofol had mild inflammatory changes, and no histopathologic lesions were seen 30 and 60 days following propofol administration.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Intracardiac injection of propofol in snakes is safe and provides a rapid induction of anesthesia but leads to prolonged recovery, compared with that following induction with isoflurane. Histopathologic lesions in heart tissues following intracardiac injection of propofol were mild and resolved after 14 days.
