A comparison of epidural buprenorphine with epidural morphine for postoperative analgesia following stifle surgery in dogs

Objective To compare the efficacy of epidural buprenorphine with epidural morphine for post‐operative pain relief in dogs undergoing cranial cruciate ligament rupture repair. Study design A randomized, double blind clinical trial. Animals Twenty client‐owned dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Methods Dogs were randomly assigned to receive either epidural buprenorphine (4 µg kg^?1) or epidural morphine (0.1 mg kg^?1) in a total volume of 0.2 mL kg^?1. Epidural injections were performed immediately after induction of anesthesia. End‐tidal halothane and CO₂ were recorded every 15 minutes from the time of epidural administration of drug to extubation. A numerical rating pain score system was used by a blinded observer to evaluate analgesia beginning at extubation and continuing at specific intervals for 24 hours after surgery. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure were recorded noninvasively at the same times. If pain score indicated moderate discomfort, rescue morphine at 1.0 mg kg^?1 was administered intramuscularly. Results There were no significant differences between groups with respect to pain score, heart rate, respiratory rate, indirect blood pressure, end‐tidal halothane or end‐tidal CO₂ at any time point. Fifty percent of dogs in the buprenorphine group and 50% of dogs in the morphine group required rescue analgesic medication. Time of systemic rescue morphine administration did not differ significantly between the two groups. There were no clinically observable side‐effects from epidural administration of either drug in any of the dogs of this study. Conclusions Epidural buprenorphine is as effective as epidural morphine for the relief of postoperative hindlimb orthopedic pain in dogs. Clinical relevance Buprenorphine appears to be an effective opioid for epidural use in healthy dogs. Buprenorphine may offer certain advantages over morphine for epidural use, such as lower abuse potential and, in some clinics, reduced cost and less wastage of drug.