Objective

To collect data about the current practice of recovering horses from general anesthesia and recovery personnel safety.

Study design

Online survey.

Methods

An online questionnaire, including questions on general demographic data, recovery drugs, modality and characteristics of equine recovery and morbidity and mortality, was designed and distributed via e-mail to equine practitioners worldwide.

Results

Practitioners from 22 countries completed 373 questionnaires; 53% of the participants were board-certified equine surgeons, and the remainder were board-certified anesthesiologists (18%), large animal residents (8%), general practitioners (7%), large animal interns (6%), anesthesia residents (4.5%) and veterinary technicians (1.6%). Respondents were employed by academia (58%) or private practice (42%). Of the respondents employed at a university, 93% had a board-certified anesthesiologist on staff compared with 7% of respondents employed at a private practice. Most of the respondents assist horses during recovery, with 23% assisting every recovery and 44% assisting recovery in the majority of cases. Reasons for choosing to assist horses during recovery were: orthopedic procedures (57%), neurological deficits (49%), bad health (47%), history of poor recovery (44%), foals (42%), draft breeds (30%), magnetic resonance imaging (17%) and computed tomography (16%). Unacceptable recoveries were reported by 77% of participants. Commonly reported complications during recovery with any method were: orthopedic injury (66%), myopathy (54%), skin abrasion (53%) and airway obstruction (37%). The incidences of unacceptable quality of recovery (p = 0.09) or personnel injury (p = 0.56) were not different between assisted and nonassisted recoveries; however, more equine fatalities were reported for assisted recoveries (p < 0.006). Practitioners in academia reported more unacceptable recoveries (p < 0.0007) and personnel injuries (p < 0.002) compared with those in private practice.

Conclusions

The method of recovery differs among hospitals. Recovery personnel injuries associated with assisting horses during recovery are an important and previously unreported finding.

中文翻译：

---

马术实践中全身麻醉及相关人员损伤恢复马匹过程问卷调查

客观的

收集有关从全身麻醉和恢复人员安全中恢复马匹的当前做法的数据。

学习规划

在线调查。

方法

设计了一份在线问卷，包括关于一般人口统计数据、恢复药物、马恢复的方式和特征以及发病率和死亡率的问题，并通过电子邮件分发给世界各地的马从业者。

结果

来自22个国家的从业者完成了373份问卷；53% 的参与者是经过委员会认证的马外科医生，其余是经过委员会认证的麻醉师 (18%)、大型动物住院医师 (8%)、全科医生 (7%)、大型动物实习生 (6%)、麻醉住院医师(4.5%) 和兽医技术人员 (1.6%)。受访者受雇于学术界（58%）或私人执业（42%）。在大学工作的受访者中，有 93% 的员工拥有经过董事会认证的麻醉师，而在私人诊所工作的受访者中，这一比例为 7%。大多数受访者在恢复期间协助马匹，23% 协助每次恢复，44% 在大多数情况下协助恢复。选择在恢复期间协助马匹的原因是：骨科手术 (57%)、神经功能障碍 (49%)、健康状况不佳 (47%)、恢复不良的历史 (44%)、马驹 (42%)、选拔品种 (30%)、磁共振成像 (17%) 和计算机断层扫描 (16%)。77% 的参与者报告了不可接受的回收率。使用任何方法恢复期间常见的并发症是：骨科损伤（66%）、肌病（54%）、皮肤擦伤（53%）和气道阻塞（37%）。不可接受的恢复质量的发生率（p  = 0.09）或人员伤害（p  = 0.56）在辅助和非辅助恢复之间没有差异；然而，据报道，辅助康复的马死亡人数更多（p < 0.006）。与私人执业的相比，学术界的从业者报告了更多不可接受的康复（p < 0.0007）和人员伤害（p < 0.002）。

结论

不同医院的恢复方法不同。与在恢复期间协助马匹相关的恢复人员受伤是一个重要且以前未报告的发现。