Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus scrofa).
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2016; 55(1):35-40JA

Abstract

The traditionally cited recommendations for the preoperative restriction of food (including bedding) and water in pigs do not appear to be evidence-based. As a preliminary step in elucidating a rationale for and standardizing preoperative food and water restriction (PFWR), this structured review recorded recent reported practices in PFWR in laboratory pigs and its consequences. Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for recently published (2012 - 2014) recovery surgery procedures in pigs. Information pertaining to PFWR practices, as delineated in the ARRIVE guidelines, was extracted from the 233 articles retrieved. Food withdrawal was described in 73 of the 233 (31%) papers evaluated, bedding withdrawal in 5 articles (2%), and water withholding in 13 publications (6%) papers. Food, bedding, and water withdrawal regimens had a median (range) duration of 12 (4 to 48), 48 (48 to 72), and 12 (2 to 12) h, respectively. Compared with other types of procedures, articles describing gastrointestinal or abdominal surgery were more likely to report fasting regimes. Liquid diets were described in 11 of the 233 (5%) publications evaluated. Adverse effects of PFWR effects were not reported. These data reveal considerable variation in PFWR practices. The stress of fasting coupled with the absence of evidence for current recommendations makes the rationale and standards for PFWR in pigs worthy of further study.

Authors+Show Affiliations

The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UKEH25 9RG.The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UKEH25 9RG;, Email: e.clutton@ed.ac.uk.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

26817978

Citation

Bradbury, A Guenevere, and R Eddie Clutton. "Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus Scrofa)." Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, vol. 55, no. 1, 2016, pp. 35-40.
Bradbury AG, Clutton RE. Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus scrofa). J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2016;55(1):35-40.
Bradbury, A. G., & Clutton, R. E. (2016). Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus scrofa). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 55(1), pp. 35-40.
Bradbury AG, Clutton RE. Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus Scrofa). J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2016;55(1):35-40. PubMed PMID: 26817978.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Review of Practices Reported for Preoperative Food and Water Restriction of Laboratory Pigs (Sus scrofa). AU - Bradbury,A Guenevere, AU - Clutton,R Eddie, PY - 2016/1/29/entrez PY - 2016/1/29/pubmed PY - 2016/10/8/medline SP - 35 EP - 40 JF - Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS JO - J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. VL - 55 IS - 1 N2 - The traditionally cited recommendations for the preoperative restriction of food (including bedding) and water in pigs do not appear to be evidence-based. As a preliminary step in elucidating a rationale for and standardizing preoperative food and water restriction (PFWR), this structured review recorded recent reported practices in PFWR in laboratory pigs and its consequences. Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for recently published (2012 - 2014) recovery surgery procedures in pigs. Information pertaining to PFWR practices, as delineated in the ARRIVE guidelines, was extracted from the 233 articles retrieved. Food withdrawal was described in 73 of the 233 (31%) papers evaluated, bedding withdrawal in 5 articles (2%), and water withholding in 13 publications (6%) papers. Food, bedding, and water withdrawal regimens had a median (range) duration of 12 (4 to 48), 48 (48 to 72), and 12 (2 to 12) h, respectively. Compared with other types of procedures, articles describing gastrointestinal or abdominal surgery were more likely to report fasting regimes. Liquid diets were described in 11 of the 233 (5%) publications evaluated. Adverse effects of PFWR effects were not reported. These data reveal considerable variation in PFWR practices. The stress of fasting coupled with the absence of evidence for current recommendations makes the rationale and standards for PFWR in pigs worthy of further study. SN - 1559-6109 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26817978/Review_of_Practices_Reported_for_Preoperative_Food_and_Water_Restriction_of_Laboratory_Pigs__Sus_scrofa L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1559-6109&volume=55&issue=1&spage=35&aulast=Bradbury DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -