ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of different intramuscular injectable anesthetic combinations in rabbits: Impact on anesthetic depth, physiological parameters, and EEG recordings.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing CT-Based Models for Predicting Whole-Body Fat in Rabbits.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026Article
- General anesthesia and depth of anesthesia (DoA) evaluation methods in laboratory animals: a comprehensive review.Veterinary research communications · 2026Review
- Anesthetic Protocols for Enhancing Physiological Stability in Rabbits During Hemorrhagic Shock.Veterinary medicine international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rabbits have a high anesthesia-related mortality rate because of their small size, high metabolic rate and challenging airway management. This study aimed to investigate different combinations of intramuscularly administered anesthetics in New Zealand White rabbits, focusing on their effects on anesthetic depth, physiological parameters, and electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings. Defined doses ketamine (K), esketamine (SK), medetomidine (M), dexmedetomidine (D), midazolam (Mi), and butorphanol (B) were investigated and compared in five different combinations: KM (25/0.25 mg/kg), SKM (17/0.25 mg/kg), SKD (17/0.15 mg/kg), MMiB (0.25/1/0.2 mg/kg), and DMiB (0.15/1/0.2 mg/kg). For 60 minutes, the anesthetic depth was assessed using an anesthesia score, and physiological parameters, including heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation and blood pressure were recorded. The study also assessed the latencies to loss and recovery of reflexes after targeted antagonization, and EEGs were measured. The rabbits were not intubated and were supplied with oxygenated air via nasal probes. All anesthetic combinations achieved anesthesia with surgical tolerance, with significant intergroup differences in HR, RR, blood pressure and EEG power spectra. The KM group demonstrated the most stable anesthesia and rapid recovery, while SKD and SKM groups showed prolonged recovery times. Oxygen saturation remained consistently high across all groups, obviating the need for intubation. All rabbits recovered fully after anesthesia. In conclusion, intramuscular administered anesthetic combinations can provide effective anesthesia with surgical tolerance for short procedures in rabbits. Monitoring circulatory parameters during and after anesthesia and adequate pain management pre-, inter-, and postoperatively are essential. Considering these criteria, the KM group presented the best results compared with the other groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.