Veterinary ophthalmology · 2023
Topical ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% significantly reduce corneal sensitivity without short-term negative side effects in horses.
Randomized Controlled Trial, VeterinaryСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Minaldi Michael P, Fidler Laura E, Betbeze Caroline M, Wills Robert, Fontenot Robin L, Telle Mary R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate corneal sensitivity and acute side effects following application of ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% on the healthy equine cornea.
ANIMALS STUDIED: Eight healthy adult horses.
PROCEDURE: A randomized, masked, crossover study design was utilized. Baseline Semiquantitative Preclinical Ocular Toxicology (SPOT) scores and corneal touch thresholds (CTT) using a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer were recorded and measured, respectively, for eight healthy adult horses before medication application. Commercially available eyewash was used as a negative control. Ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or lidocaine hydrochloride 2% solution was sprayed on a randomly selected eye, and the contralateral eye received eyewash. CTT was measured in both eyes at 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 min post-application. Post-application SPOT scores were recorded immediately following the trial. Linear mixed model statistical analyses (mean ± standard error) were performed (p < .05).
RESULTS: Mean eyewash CTT (3.41 cm ± 0.464) was significantly different from ropivacaine-treated (1.44 cm ± 0.562) (p = .008) and lidocaine-treated eyes (1.75 cm ± 0.562) (p = .024); CTT was not significantly different between drug groups (p = .88). Time to maximum anesthesia was not significantly different between ropivacaine (13.25 min ± 3.353) and lidocaine (16.25 min ± 3.353) (p = .40). No side effects were appreciated as confirmed by SPOT.
CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine and lidocaine similarly decreased corneal sensitivity when applied topically without clinically evident short-term ocular side effects. Lidocaine may be preferable in clinical settings due to its large, multi-use vials and similar effects to ropivacaine.
ANIMALS STUDIED: Eight healthy adult horses.
PROCEDURE: A randomized, masked, crossover study design was utilized. Baseline Semiquantitative Preclinical Ocular Toxicology (SPOT) scores and corneal touch thresholds (CTT) using a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer were recorded and measured, respectively, for eight healthy adult horses before medication application. Commercially available eyewash was used as a negative control. Ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or lidocaine hydrochloride 2% solution was sprayed on a randomly selected eye, and the contralateral eye received eyewash. CTT was measured in both eyes at 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 min post-application. Post-application SPOT scores were recorded immediately following the trial. Linear mixed model statistical analyses (mean ± standard error) were performed (p < .05).
RESULTS: Mean eyewash CTT (3.41 cm ± 0.464) was significantly different from ropivacaine-treated (1.44 cm ± 0.562) (p = .008) and lidocaine-treated eyes (1.75 cm ± 0.562) (p = .024); CTT was not significantly different between drug groups (p = .88). Time to maximum anesthesia was not significantly different between ropivacaine (13.25 min ± 3.353) and lidocaine (16.25 min ± 3.353) (p = .40). No side effects were appreciated as confirmed by SPOT.
CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine and lidocaine similarly decreased corneal sensitivity when applied topically without clinically evident short-term ocular side effects. Lidocaine may be preferable in clinical settings due to its large, multi-use vials and similar effects to ropivacaine.