Videosurgery is increasingly used in veterinary medicine. Compared with open surgery, it has been shown to cause minimal pain and promote a more rapid recovery. There are various methods of assessing pain and postoperative inflammation in cats, although their particular behaviours may make these assessments difficult. The aim of this study was to compare levels of postoperative pain and inflammation after laparoscopic ovariectomy with an open minimally invasive technique. Twenty queens were randomly divided into two groups based on the method of haemostasis and surgical technique: (1) laparoscopic ovariectomy using a miniloop (miniloop group (MG)); and (2) minilaparotomy using a Snook hook (control group (CG)). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), end tidal CO2 (EtCO2) and body temperature were assessed using a multiparametric monitor during anaesthesia and surgery at defined surgical time points (preincision, left ovary manipulation, right ovary manipulation and skin suture). Blood samples (2 mL each) were collected from the jugular vein before surgery and 1, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours, and 10 days, after endotracheal extubation for blood count analysis and to assess total protein and acute phase proteins (APP). EtCO2 and RR were significantly higher in MG patients (P<0.001). HR was higher in the CG group for the duration of surgery (P=0.01). Temperature was significantly lower in MG patients (P<0.001). Pain assessment by dynamic interactive visual analogue scale showed no difference between groups or at specific moments of time within groups. Segmented neutrophil counts increased at 24 hours postoperatively and peaked at 48 and 72 hours in MG (P=0.01). The most important result among APPs was haptoglobin, which peaked at 72 hours in MG patients (P=0.001). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy and laparoscopy showed comparable postoperative pain. However, inflammatory changes such as APPs and neutrophil counts were increased in the laparoscopic group.
- acute phase protein
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the Ethics Committee in the Use of Animals (CEUA, protocol 011090/15) of the School of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine (FCVA) of the Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Campus Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil. Animals were only included in this study if the owners agreed to the Terms of Free and Informed Consent.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.