Comparison of two anaesthetic protocols for ovariohysterectomy in cats: a randomized blinded trial

Josiah Carberry; Hannah Brooks; Oliver Reed

Articles Published March 15, 2026 Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)

Comparison of two anaesthetic protocols for ovariohysterectomy in cats: a randomized blinded trial

Authors

PDF

Affiliation

¹ Department of Surgery, Riverside Veterinary School
² Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Northfield University

Abstract

Objective: To compare recovery quality and cardiorespiratory variables between alfaxalone- and propofol-based induction protocols in cats undergoing elective ovariohysterectomy.

Methods: Sixty healthy cats were randomly assigned to receive either protocol; assessors were blinded to treatment.

Results: Recovery scores and times to extubation did not differ between groups. Post-induction apnoea was less frequent with alfaxalone (7% vs 27%).

Conclusions: Both protocols are suitable; alfaxalone may be preferred where respiratory depression is a concern.

Keywords

References

Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 Google Scholar Crossref
Festing MFW, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J. 2002;43(4):244–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 Google Scholar Crossref
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Google Scholar Crossref
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x Google Scholar Crossref

About the authors

Josiah Carberry ORCID

Department of Surgery, Riverside Veterinary School

Josiah Carberry is ORCID’s fictitious test researcher, used here to demonstrate the ORCID badge.

License

CC BY 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[ref-1] Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 Google Scholar Crossref

[ref-2] Festing MFW, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J. 2002;43(4):244–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 Google Scholar Crossref

[ref-3] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Google Scholar Crossref

[ref-4] Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x Google Scholar Crossref