Topical ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% significantly reduce corneal sensitivity without short‐term negative side effects in horses

Topical ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% significantly reduce corneal sensitivity without short‐term negative side effects in horses

Objective To evaluate corneal sensitivity and acute side effects following application of ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% on the healthy equine cornea. Animals Studied Eight healthy adult horses. Procedure A randomized, masked, crossover study design was utilized. Basel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary ophthalmology Vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 446 - 451
Main Authors: Minaldi, Michael P., Fidler, Laura E., Betbeze, Caroline M., Wills, Robert, Fontenot, Robin L., Telle, Mary R.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England 01-09-2023
Subjects:
corneal touch threshold
esthesiometry
horse
sensitivity
topical anesthesia
horse
corneal touch threshold
esthesiometry
sensitivity
topical anesthesia
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To evaluate corneal sensitivity and acute side effects following application of ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% on the healthy equine cornea. Animals Studied Eight healthy adult horses. Procedure A randomized, masked, crossover study design was utilized. Baseline Semiquantitative Preclinical Ocular Toxicology (SPOT) scores and corneal touch thresholds (CTT) using a Cochet‐Bonnet esthesiometer were recorded and measured, respectively, for eight healthy adult horses before medication application. Commercially available eyewash was used as a negative control. Ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or lidocaine hydrochloride 2% solution was sprayed on a randomly selected eye, and the contralateral eye received eyewash. CTT was measured in both eyes at 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 min post‐application. Post‐application SPOT scores were recorded immediately following the trial. Linear mixed model statistical analyses (mean ± standard error) were performed (p < .05). Results Mean eyewash CTT (3.41 cm ± 0.464) was significantly different from ropivacaine‐treated (1.44 cm ± 0.562) (p = .008) and lidocaine‐treated eyes (1.75 cm ± 0.562) (p = .024); CTT was not significantly different between drug groups (p = .88). Time to maximum anesthesia was not significantly different between ropivacaine (13.25 min ± 3.353) and lidocaine (16.25 min ± 3.353) (p = .40). No side effects were appreciated as confirmed by SPOT. Conclusions Ropivacaine and lidocaine similarly decreased corneal sensitivity when applied topically without clinically evident short‐term ocular side effects. Lidocaine may be preferable in clinical settings due to its large, multi‐use vials and similar effects to ropivacaine.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1463-5216
1463-5224
DOI:10.1111/vop.13137