Prospective comparison of perioperative wound and pain score parameters in cats undergoing flank vs midline ovariectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J Swaffield ◽  
Sara L Molloy ◽  
Victoria J Lipscomb
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Surgical Wound ◽  
Wound Breakdown ◽  
Prospective Comparison ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Descriptive Scale

Objectives The aim of this study was to prospectively compare perioperative pain score and wound parameters, inclusive of postoperative swelling and erythema, between flank and midline ovariectomy (OVE) in cats, performed by final-year veterinary students. Methods Healthy cats presented for routine OVE were randomly assigned to either the midline or flank group after owner consent to participate in the study. Perioperative protocols were standardised for both groups. Clinical data were collected prior to surgery, intraoperatively, at 1 h postoperatively, at the time of discharge, and at 3 and 10 day postoperative re-examination appointments. Data recorded included duration of surgery and anaesthesia, intraoperative complications, Feline Acute Pain Scale (FAPS) scores, a simple descriptive scale of reaction to wound palpation (SDSwound), a dynamic and interactive visual analogue scale assessment of pain (DIVAS), and both a simple descriptive scale (SDSswelling) and a visual analogue scale (VASswelling) of surgical wound swelling. Results Thirty-eight cats received a flank OVE and 37 received a midline OVE. Duration of surgery, duration of anaesthesia and intraoperative complications did not vary significantly between the two groups. Cats in both groups had significantly higher FAPS scores after surgery ( P = 0.0002), with cats receiving a flank OVE having significantly higher pain scores compared with a midline OVE at 1 h postoperatively ( P = 0.0004) and at discharge ( P = 0.002). Swelling of the surgical wound (SDSswelling) was significantly higher in cats receiving a midline OVE at the time of discharge ( P = 0.048), as well as at the 3 day ( P <0.0001) and 10 day ( P = 0.001) postoperative re-examinations. FAPS scores were significantly higher in cats receiving a midline OVE at the 3 day ( P = 0.016) and 10 day re-examinations ( P = 0.045). No cats in either group suffered a wound breakdown or infection. Conclusions and relevance Our study does not support advocating a preferred surgical approach for feline OVE within a teaching environment.

scholarly journals The Minimum Clinically Significant Difference in Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score in a Local Emergency Setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
MSM Mark ◽  
TTS Au ◽  
YF Choi ◽  
TW Wong
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Visual Analogue Scale Pain ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Analogue Scale Pain ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives To determine whether the minimum clinically significant difference (MCSD) in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score varies with age, gender, education level and cause of pain (trauma versus non-trauma) in Chinese patients. Methods This was a prospective descriptive study of local Chinese patients 15 years of age or older who presented with pain to the accident & emergency department. On presentation, patients were asked to indicate their current pain severity with a single mark through a standard 100–mm visual analogue scale. Then they would be offered an analgesic for pain-relief. After 30–45 minutes, the patients were asked to give a verbal categorical rating of their pain as ‘a lot better’, ‘a little better’, ‘much the same’, ‘a little worse’, or ‘much worse’ and to mark the level of pain on a VAS of the same type as used previously. The MCSD in VAS pain score was defined as the mean difference between the current and preceding scores when the subject reported ‘a little worse’ or ‘a little better’ in pain. Data were compared based on gender, age, education level, and traumatic versus non-traumatic causes of pain. Results 186 patients were enrolled in the study, yielding 77 evaluable comparisons where pain was rated as ‘a little better’ or ‘a little worse’. Overall, the MCSD in VAS pain score in the group was 17 mm (95%CI 13.6 mm to 20.6 mm). There were statistically significant differences between the MCSD in VAS pain score between genders and causes of pain (trauma versus non-trauma). Conclusions The MCSD in VAS pain scores was found to be 17 mm. There was significant differences in MCSD in VAS pain score in different genders and between trauma and non-trauma cases.

scholarly journals Tswana speaking South Africans’ understanding of pain scales

2009 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Yazbek ◽  
A. Stewart ◽  
P. Becker
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Pain Tolerance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pressure Threshold ◽  
Pain Scales

Aim: The aim of this study was to establish the validity and reliability of the Tswanatranslations of three pain scales.Design: This was a cross–sectional study to validate and test the reliability of threepain scales.Participants:   One hundred subjects participated in the study. They were selectedfrom the back schools of five hospitals in the North -West Province of South A frica andfrom workers in these hospitals who were employed as kitchen workers, laundryworkers and cleaners.Method: Translation of the pain scales and the stages of cross-cultural adaptation were followed as recommended byBeaton et al (2000). Pain tolerance of the subjects was measured using a P.T.M. (pressure threshold meter). The painscales used were the V.A .S. (visual analogue scale) one (nought and ten only), the V.A .S. (visual analogue scale) two(nought through to ten), the W.B.F. (Wong-Baker Faces pain measure) and the V.R.S. (verbal rating scale).  The V.R.S.used came in two forms. The first form was written on cue cards which the subjects arranged in order and the second form was the questionnaire version of the V.R.S.The subjects were interviewed and asked five questions relating to their back pain. Upon completion of the interviewthe pressure threshold of the painful area (back) was tested. Subjects then filled in the three pain scales, namely the (V.A .S. one, V.A .S. two, the V.R.S. and lastly the W.B.F. pain scale). Approximately a third of the sample (37) was retested the following day following the same procedure asdescribed above. Results: There was no correlation between the pressure threshold meter readings and the pain scale measurements.  Conclusion: From the statistical analysis of the results, it became apparent that the subjects tested did not have anunderstanding of any of the three pain scales. Future research needs to be done in developing entirely different scales for peoples of low literacy and differentlanguage and cultural groups in South Africa.

On the electronic measurement of pain intensity: Can we use different pain intensity scales interchangeably?

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 1658-1667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabet Sánchez-Rodríguez ◽  
Elena Castarlenas ◽  
Rocío de la Vega ◽  
Roman Roset ◽  
Jordi Miró
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Numerical Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Maximum Intensity ◽  
Bland Altman Method ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Electronic Measurement

The objective of this work was to study the agreement between four pain intensity scales when administered electronically: the Numerical Rating Scale-11, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised, the Visual Analogue Scale and the Coloured Analogue Scale. In all, 180 schoolchildren between 12 and 19 years old participated in the study. They had to report the maximum intensity of their most frequent pain using the electronic versions of the four scales. Agreement was calculated using the Bland–Altman method. Results show that the electronic versions of Numerical Rating Scale-11, Coloured Analogue Scale and Visual Analogue Scale can be used interchangeably.

The effect of distraction on pain perception during an endovenous thermal ablation procedure

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 463-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina EG van Zandvoort ◽  
Irwin M Toonder ◽  
Irma AJ Stoopendaal ◽  
Cees HA Wittens
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Thermal Ablation ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Visual Analogue Scale Pain ◽  
Visual Distraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Analogue Scale Pain ◽  
Endovenous Thermal Ablation

Objectives To determine whether audio and visual distraction can affect the pain perception of a patient undergoing endovenous thermal ablation under tumescent anesthesia. Methods Patients underwent an endovenous thermal ablation procedure and were randomized into two groups: non-distraction (AVD−) and with distraction (AVD+). Visual analogue scale pain score and hospital anxiety depression scale scores were used to measure outcome. The recruited patients were asked to submit an anticipated visual analogue scale pain score prior to treatment as well as the actual experienced post-operative visual analogue scale pain score. Results There was no significant difference between the AVD− and AVD+ groups post-operative pain score 2.85 (SD 1.7) versus 2.60 (SD 2.3), p = 0.68. Pain score in women with distraction (AVD+) decreased from 3.81 to 2.42. The pain score in men with distraction (AVD+) increases from 1.88 to 2.82. In the AVD− group, a significant difference was found between men and women ( p = 0.014). Disregarding gender, a significant difference was found between the anticipated pain score and the actual pain score in both the AVD− group ( p = 0.009) and AVD+ group ( p = 0.021). There was a correlation between depression and the pain score, which was not seen between pain and anxiety score. Conclusion The results suggested that audiovisual distraction has no influence on the visual analogue scale pain score during endovenous thermal ablation under tumescent anesthesia. Despite this, patients appreciate and evaluate audio and visual distraction as pleasant to extremely pleasant when applied.

scholarly journals Comparison of pain response after subcutaneous injection of two maropitant formulations to beagle dogs

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nynke Deckers ◽  
Catharina A Ruigrok ◽  
Hans Peter Verhoeve ◽  
Nicky Lourens
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Benzyl Alcohol ◽  
Subcutaneous Injection ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Pain Response ◽  
Beagle Dogs ◽  
Subcutaneous Injections ◽  
Local Pain ◽  
Descriptive Scale

The antiemetic maropitant, with metacresol as preservative (Cerenia, Zoetis), has been associated with pain after subcutaneous injection in dogs and cats. Recently, a generic formulation containing benzyl alcohol was authorised (Prevomax, Le Vet). Benzyl alcohol is reported to have local anaesthetic properties and reduce injection pain. This study compared local pain after subcutaneous injection of the two maropitant formulations, administered at approximately 4°C and 25°C, to dogs. Thirty-two healthy beagle dogs were enrolled into a blinded, randomised, cross-over study. Dogs received subcutaneous injections of maropitant injection containing metacresol as preservative and maropitant injection containing benzyl alcohol as preservative, both at approximately 4°C and 25°C, with at least three days in between treatments. Injection pain was evaluated by two blinded observers using a visual analogue scale immediately after injection and a simple descriptive scale at two minutes after injection. In healthy beagle dogs, subcutaneous injection of maropitant with benzyl alcohol is significantly less painful than injection of maropitant with metacresol.

Measurement of Pain in the Prehospital Setting Using a Visual Analogue Scale

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill A. Lord ◽  
Brian Parsell
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
The Mean

AbstractIntroduction:The aim of this study was to use a visual analogue scale (VAS) to measure the adequacy of prehospital pain management. Patients reported pain severity at two points in time during treatment and transport by ambulance paramedics. The change in pain score was compared with a benchmark reduction of 20 mm that has been shown to correspond with the minimum clinically significant change in pain perception reported by patients.Methods:This prospective, observational study used a VA S to record pain severity among patients reporting pain who were transported to a hospital by paramedics. Patients used a VAS to score pain severity during the initial patient assessment process (T0), and again at the hospital of destination (Tend). This study reports the mean changes in the scores, and the percentage of cases for whom the difference between T0and Tend in the study population achieved or exceeded the 20 mm benchmark. A survey also was administered to paramedics who participated in this study in order to identify attitudes, values, and beliefs relating to the measurement of pain.Results:A total of 262 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean value for thereduction in VAS (T0-Tend) was 18.2±23.9 mm [±SD] (Median = 14.0mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 15.3–21.1 mm). One hundred and thirty-four patients (51.1%) did not receive analgesia (either morphine sulfate or methoxyflurane). The mean initial (T0) pain score for the no-analgesia group was 54.5 ±24.7 mm [±SD], with the mean value for the change in VAS (T0-Tend) = 10.6 mm (median = 5 mm, 95% CI = 6.4–14.8 mm). Fo rty-six patients (17.6%) recorded some deterioration in their pain score at Tend (T0-Tend<0 mm). Survey results identified attitudes that may affect paramedics' pain management practice.Conclusion:The results suggest that inadequate analgesia is an issue in this study setting. Effective analgesia requires formal protocols or guidelines supported by effective analgesic therapies along with education that addresses attitudes that may inhibit pain assessment or management by paramedics. Regular audits form part of clinical quality assurance programs that assess analgesic practice. However, such auditsmust have access to data obtained from patient self-reporting of pain using a valid and reliable pain measurement tool.

scholarly journals A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of vedaprofeno, carprofen or ketofen after ovariohysterectomy in bitches

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 785-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Luis Selmi ◽  
Bruno Testoni Lins ◽  
Fernanda Bicudo Cesar ◽  
Juliana Peboni Figueiredo ◽  
Juan Carlos Duque
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Visual Analogue Scale ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Serum Cortisol ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Postoperative Assessment ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
The University

In this study the authors aimed to compare the efficiency of carprofen, ketoprofen and vedaprofen for alleviating postoperative pain in bitches submitted to ovariohysterectomy (OH). Pre- and postoperative assessment of pain was made using serum levels of cortisol and glucose, the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the University of Melbourne pain scale (UMPS) in twenty-one bitches undergoing OH. Dogs were randomly assigned to one of three groups: vedaprofen at 0.5mg kg-1, carprofen at 2.2mg kg-1 or ketoprofen at 2.2mg kg-1. All analgesics were given orally 2 hour before surgery. Assessments were made before surgery and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 24 hours post-extubation. No dog of this study required additional doses of analgesics. There were no significant differences on serum cortisol and glucose concentrations among groups or from basal values, excepted one hour after extubation. No significant differences on pain scores were observed. It was concluded that vedaprofen provided as good a level of postoperative analgesia as carprofen and ketoprofen.

Caudal Ropivacaine and Neostigmine in Pediatric Surgery

2003 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alparslan Turan ◽  
Dilek Memiş ◽  
Ümit N. Başaran ◽  
Beyhan Karamanlıoğlu ◽  
Necdet Süt
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Caudal Anesthesia ◽  
Group I ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Hypospadias Surgery

Background Neostigmine has been added to local anesthetics for different nerve blocks. This study was conducted to evaluate effects of neostigmine when added to ropivacaine for caudal anesthesia. Methods We studied children, aged 1-5 yr, undergoing inguinal hernia and hypospadias surgery. After standard induction of anesthesia, Group I received 0.2% ropivacaine 0.5 ml/kg and Group II received 0.2% ropivacaine 0.5 ml/kg with 2 microg/kg neostigmine via the caudal route. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and pulse oximetry were recorded before induction, after induction, and then every 10 min after caudal anesthesia. Hemodynamic, Toddler-Preschooler Postoperative Pain Scale pain score, and sedation score values were recorded 30 min after extubation and at hours 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24. A pain score greater than 3/10 resulted in administration of rectal paracetamol. Results There were no differences between the groups in demographic and hemodynamic data, duration of surgery and anesthesia, time to extubation, or sedation scores. The pain scores were significantly lower in Group II at 6 and 12 h (P &lt; 0.05). Time to first analgesic requirement was statistically prolonged in Group II (19.2 +/- 5.5h) when compared with Group I (7.1 +/- 5.7 h) (P &lt; 0.05). Total analgesic consumption was statistically larger in Group I (174 +/- 96 mg) when compared with Group II (80 +/- 85.5 mg) (P &lt; 0.05). The incidence of vomiting (3 patients in Group II and 1 patient in Group I) was not statistically significantly different. Conclusions The authors found that a single caudal injection of neostigmine when added to ropivacaine offers an advantage over ropivacaine alone for postoperative pain relief in children undergoing genitourinary surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document