ArticleExperimental animals2025
Dual-route medetomidine-alfaxalone-butorphanol anesthesia: a refined protocol for balanced anesthesia in male rabbits.
Article in Experimental animals, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Injectable anesthesia is widely used in laboratory animals because of its ease of administration and minimal equipment requirements. However, it necessitates careful monitoring as well as thermal and oxygen support. This study evaluated the efficacy of medetomidine-alfaxalone-butorphanol (MAB) anesthesia in male rabbits using a dual-route administration protocol. The anesthetic doses were as follows: medetomidine, 0.2 mg/kg; alfaxalone, 2.0 mg/kg; and butorphanol, 2.0 mg/kg. MAB anesthesia, administered via intravenous and subcutaneous routes, induced rapid and smooth induction, achieving anesthetic scores comparable to those of medetomidine-midazolam-butorphanol (MMB) anesthesia. MAB anesthesia resulted in mild hypothermia during the procedure. Upon atipamezole administration, rabbits under MAB anesthesia exhibited faster recovery of the righting reflex and respiration rate than those under MMB. Importantly, no abnormal behaviors, such as jumping or agitation, were observed during induction or recovery, as reported with alfaxalone use in other species. Both protocols maintained spontaneous breathing, although transient hypoxemia was observed in all rabbits. The dual-route MAB protocol provided effective anesthesia while addressing the limitations of conventional MMB anesthesia in rabbits, suggesting its potential as a refined anesthetic method for this species. Unlike mice, which showed weaker anesthetic effects with MAB compared to MMB, MAB demonstrated superior anesthetic properties in rabbits. This study highlights the importance of species-specific anesthetic protocols and the potential benefits of MAB anesthesia in rabbits, particularly its smooth induction and recovery profile, without adverse behaviors often associated with alfaxalone in other species.
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.