• Julie K Byron, Philip A March, Stephen P DiBartola, Dennis J Chew, and William W Muir.
• Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
• Am. J. Vet. Res. 2003 Oct 1;64(10):1288-92.

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the urethral pressure profile in female dogs.Animals10 healthy female dogs.ProcedureUrethral pressure profilometry was performed in awake dogs, during anesthesia with sevoflurane at 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0% end-tidal concentration, and during infusion of propofol at rates of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 mg/kg/min. A consistent plane of anesthesia was maintained for each anesthetic protocol. Maximum urethral pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, functional profile length, and functional area were measured.ResultsMean maximum urethral closure pressure of awake dogs was not significantly different than that of dogs anesthetized with propofol at all infusion rates or with sevoflurane at 1.5 and 2.0% end-tidal concentration. Functional area in awake dogs was significantly higher than in anesthetized dogs. Functional area of dogs during anesthesia with sevoflurane at 3.0% end-tidal concentration was significantly lower than functional area for other anesthetic protocols. Individual differences in the magnitude of effects of propofol and sevoflurane on urethral pressures were observed.Conclusions And Clinical RelevanceSevoflurane is an alternative to propofol for anesthesia in female dogs undergoing urethral pressure profilometry. Use of these anesthetics at appropriate administration rates should reliably distinguish normal from abnormal maximum urethral closure pressures and functional areas. Titration of anesthetic depth is a critical component of urodynamic testing.

18 keywords...

hide…