Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 27;48(1):70–78. doi: 10.1111/vsu.13110

Table 7.

Summarization of the degree of jaw tonea

Jaw tone response Observer Method of induction, No. of dogs (%)
Initial P Initial M Second P + S Second P + D Second M + S Second M + D
0 DRD 9 (47.3) 14 (70) 6 (66.7) 4 (40) 7 (70) 7 (77.8)
MBB 12 (60) 15 (83.3) 6 (60) 5 (50) 8 (88.9) 7 (87.5)
1 DRD 9 (47.4) 6 (30) 3 (33.3) 6 (60) 3 (30) 2 (22.2)
MBB 7 (35) 3 (16.7) 2 (20) 5 (50) 1 (11.1) 1 (12.5)
2 DRD 1 (5.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MBB 1 (5) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
3 DRD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MBB 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Total responses DRD 19 20 9 10 10 9
MBB 20 18 10 10 9 8
P value .23 .469

D, doxapram; M, methohexital; P, propofol; S, saline.

a

Identified between direct observers (DRD and MBB) in initial and second evaluations of groups P and M. Jaw tone was scored as 0 = no jaw tone, 1 = slight jaw tone, 2 = moderate jaw tone, and 3 = excessive jaw tone. The first observer (DRD) was not available for evaluation of 1 dog in the P group, yielding 39 dogs in total that were evaluated. The second observer (MBB) was absent for evaluation of 2 dogs in the M group, yielding 38 dogs in total that were evaluated. Both observers (DRD and MBB) did not record 1 second evaluation for a dog in the M + D group because this dog vomited and developed signs of seizure‐like activity.