Emma Marchionatti

(1) Background: The diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed under sedation or general anesthesia in bovines are numerous. The analgesic drugs that can be legally used are few, making perioperative analgesia challenging. (2) Methods: Calves were administered butorphanol 0.1 mg kg−1 alone (SB) or combined with 0.02 mg kg−1 of a detomidine (DB) IV. The antinociceptive effect (trigeminocervical reflex threshold (TCRt)), as well as the behavioral (sedation and excitation) and physiological (heart and respiratory rate) changes were investigated. Five time windows were defined: BL (30 min pre-injection), T1 (0–30 min post-injection (PI)), T2 (31–60 min PI), T3 (61–90 min PI) and T4 (91–120 min PI). (3) Results: Both groups had a significative increase in TCRt at T1-T4 compared to the BL. The TCRt was significatively higher in DB than in SB at T1, T2 and T4. Heart rate decreased significatively in DB compared to that in BL. Calves were significantly more sedated in the DB group, and significantly more excited in the SB group compared to the BL. (4) Conclusions: Butorphanol alone has a statistically significant antinociceptive effect, but it elicits marked excitation, limiting its clinical applicability under this dosing regimen. The co-administration of detomidine eliminated the excitatory effect and induced consistent sedation and a significantly more pronounced antinociceptive effect.

Objective To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine based protocols for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in veterinary surgery. Study design Systematic meta‐analytical review according to PRISMA‐P guidelines. Sample population Studies comparing preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine in veterinary surgery identified by systematic search between 1990 and 2020. Methods A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts was performed, followed by secondary searches of Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and relevant bibliographic articles. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the efficacy of skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine on SSI incidence and skin bacterial colonization, respectively. A meta‐analysis was performed with a random‐effect model, with effect size calculated as risk ratio (RR) or mean standard deviation (MSD) with 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Among 1067 publications that met the initial search criteria, 9 relevant studies were eligible for analysis. No difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI or skin bacterial colonization between preoperative asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine was found. Insufficient information and detail were frequent among studies and precluded a clear assessment of bias. Conclusion This study showed that asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine were comparable to povidone‐iodine in preventing postoperative SSI and reducing skin bacterial colonization. Clinical significance Given the limitations of the studies that were included in terms of both quality and quantity, more high‐quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.