English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The levels of pain, duration of approaching and closure, and surgical exposure associated with intercostal thoracotomy were compared between muscle-sparing and traditional techniques in 20 dogs. Postoperative pain was assessed based on numerical pain scores using behavioral observation, heart rate, respiratory rate, and wound palpation. Time for approaching and closure were measured, and the extent of intrathoracic organ exposure for the surgical procedures was described for each technique. There were significant differences in numerical pain scores at 2 h as well as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 days after surgery between the two groups (p &lt; 0.0001). There was no significant (p = 0.725) difference in times for approaching and closure between the two groups. Compared to the traditional method, the muscle-sparing technique also achieved the desired exposure without compromising exposure of the target organs. Our results suggest that the muscle-sparing technique is more effective than the traditional method for providing a less painful recovery during the first 7 days after intercostal thoracotomy. Additionally, the muscle-sparing technique is as effective as the traditional modality for providing an appropriate time for approaching and closure during intercostal thoracotomy as well as adequate organ exposure for the surgical procedures.

Intercostal thoracotomy in 20 dogs: muscle-sparing versus traditional techniques