...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine >COMPARISON OF MEDETOMIDINE-KETAMINE AND BUTORPHANOL-AZAPERONE-MEDETOMIDINE IN CAPTIVE BENNETT'S WALLABIES (MACROPUS RUFOGRISEUS)
【24h】

COMPARISON OF MEDETOMIDINE-KETAMINE AND BUTORPHANOL-AZAPERONE-MEDETOMIDINE IN CAPTIVE BENNETT'S WALLABIES (MACROPUS RUFOGRISEUS)

机译:班尼特氏病中美托莫定-酮胺和丁香酚-氮杂哌酮-美托咪定的比较(大果鲁氏松鼠)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The objective of this study was to compare a traditional partially reversible medetomidine-ketamine sedation with a more reversible butorphanol-azaperone-medetomidine combination in Bennett's wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus) maintained in a zoological collection. Fourteen animals were divided into two treatment groups. Individuals in group 1 received an intramuscular (i.m.) injection of butorphanol (0.54 +/- 0.05 mg/kg), azaperone (0.22 +/- 0.02 mg/kg), and medetomidine (0.16 +/- 0.02 mg/kg). Individuals in group 2 received an i. m. injection of ketamine (5.43 +/- 1.16 mg/kg) with medetomidine (0.05 +/- 0.014 mg/kg). For group 1, sedation was reversed with atipamezole (0.81 +/- 0.069 mg/kg i. m.) and naltrexone (1.08 +/- 0.09 mg/kg i. m.). For group 2, sedation was reversed with atipamezole (0.27 +/- 0.056 mg/kg i. m.). There were no significant differences between the groups in mean time to induction, time spent on gas anesthesia, or time to standing after reversal was administered. Animals in both groups required supplemental gas anesthesia to facilitate intubation. No adverse reactions or effects were noted with either protocol; however, the BAM protocol did not provide sufficient sedation for handling in all animals and may not be suitable for use in this species.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较在动物学收藏品中保存的Bennett小袋鼠(Macropus rufogriseus)中传统的部分可逆的美托咪定-氯胺酮镇静剂与更可逆的丁啡诺尔-氮杂哌酮-美托咪定组合。将十四只动物分为两个治疗组。第1组的个体接受肌肉注射(or.m.)的丁烷酚(0.54 +/- 0.05 mg / kg),氮杂哌酮(0.22 +/- 0.02 mg / kg)和美托咪定(0.16 +/- 0.02 mg / kg)。第2组的个人收到i。米注射氯胺酮(5.43 +/- 1.16 mg / kg)和美托咪定(0.05 +/- 0.014 mg / kg)。对于第1组,用阿替哌唑(0.81 +/- 0.069mg / kg i.m.)和纳曲酮(1.08 +/- 0.09mg / kgi.m。)进行镇静。对于第2组,用阿替哌唑(0.27 +/- 0.056mg / kg i.m.)进行镇静。两组的平均诱导时间,气体麻醉时间或逆转后站立时间之间无显着差异。两组动物都需要补充气体麻醉以利于插管。两种方案均未发现不良反应或不良反应。但是,BAM方案并未为所有动物提供足够的镇静剂,因此可能不适用于该物种。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号