ArticleVeterinary world2025
Canine intraocular pressure dynamics during mild-pain ophthalmic procedures in three premedication protocols.
Article in Veterinary world, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preliminary estimate of reference intraocular pressure values in eastern barred bandicoots (Open veterinary journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Maintaining intraocular pressure (IOP) stability during ophthalmic procedures is essential to ensuring surgical success and reducing complications related to IOP fluctuations. This study aimed to evaluate IOP dynamics in dogs undergoing mild-pain ophthalmic procedures under three different premedication protocols: butorphanol alone (B), butorphanol with medetomidine (BM), and butorphanol with acepromazine (BA). Materials and Methods: Thirty clinically healthy client-owned dogs of various breeds (19 males, 11 females, aged 4 months-11 years, weight 7.8-79 kg) were randomized into three groups. IOP was measured at multiple perioperative time points using rebound tonometry: premedication (T0), 5 (T5), and 10 (T10) min after premedication, after intubation (Tint), before surgery (Tbsur), post-surgery (Tasur), during extubation (Text), and before discharge (Tlea). Statistical analyses, including t-tests and Pearson correlation, were performed to assess differences in IOP within and between groups. Results: Significant changes in IOP were observed at different time points across groups. The B group showed a significant IOP increase between T0 (15.55 ± 3.50 mmHg) and Tint (19.3 ± 4.19 mmHg) (p < 0.05). In the BM group, IOP increased from T0 (15.9 ± 2.77 mmHg) to Tint (19.15 ± 4.52 mmHg) and decreased significantly postoperatively at Tasur (13.5 ± 3.50 mmHg). The BA group exhibited significant IOP reductions from T0 (20.35 ± 2.78 mmHg) to Tbsur (16.45 ± 3.97 mmHg) and Tlea (17.15 ± 4.22 mmHg). No correlation was found between IOP and sex, breed, or age. Conclusion: IOP remained within normal ranges throughout the perioperative period in all groups. Acepromazine, in combination with butorphanol, was the most effective in attenuating the IOP increase caused by intubation, suggesting its potential advantage in patients at risk of corneal perforation. Clinically, premedication selection should prioritize minimal IOP fluctuation to enhance surgical outcomes.
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.