Thermal, mechanical and electrical stimuli in antinociceptive studies in standing horses: an update

Gozalo-Marcilla, Miguel; Luna, Stélio Pacca Loureiro; Gasthuys, Frank; Schauvliege, Stijn

doi:10.1016/j.vaa.2019.09.003

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the development of tools for assessing pain in camels is required and necessitates further research. In analgesiometry, various pain assessment models for animals have been mentioned ( 27 ). Electrical stimulus testing has been used reliably to facilitate an objective assessment of cutaneous nociception in cattle ( 1 , 20 ); however, in the current study, mechanical stimulation by administering pinpricks and pinching with artery forceps was used to assess the analgesic effects as these are common methods used in animal research ( 9 , 28 ), especially for aggressive and difficult to control animals such as camel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of the Sedative and Anti-nociceptive Effects of Sacrococcygeal Epidural Administration of Romifidine, Lidocaine, and Romifidine/Lidocaine in the Dromedary Camel

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a randomized prospective study, comparative sedative and anti-nociceptive effects of epidural administration of romifidine (RO), lidocaine (LD), and a combination of romifidine-lidocaine (ROLD) in camel were evaluated. Eighteen healthy adult dromedary camels were assigned randomly to three treatment groups (n = 6), each receiving 50 μg/kg of RO, 0.30 mg/kg of LD, or a combination of both RO and LD. All treatments were expanded in 0.9% sterile normal saline solution to a final dose volume of 20 ml and administered directly into the sacrococcygeal space. After epidural injection of each treatment, the onset time, duration, anatomical extension of anti-nociception, and sedation were documented. Anti-nociception was tested at different areas using a pinprick test and artery forceps pinching at the perineum and inguinal area. RO and ROLD treatments resulted in mild to severe sedation and complete bilateral analgesia with loss of sensation in the tail, perineum, scrotum in males, vulva in females, the caudal aspect skin of the upper hind limb, and inguinal region (udder in females and the prepuce in males). The anatomic extent of anti-nociception reached the chest cranially and the footpad distally. Camels who received LD showed the shortest duration (P < 0.001) to the onset of perineal anti-nociception (3.67 ± 0.33 min) followed by those who received RO LD (4.00 ± 0.37 min) and RO (6.67 ± 0.33 min), respectively. RO and ROLD resulted in significantly (P < 0.001) longer periods of analgesia (158.33 ± 4.01 min and 165 ± 3.87 min, respectively) than LD (75.83 ± 3.27). An epidural RO and ROLD would appear to produce a very effective and acceptable anti-nociceptive effect in the perineal and inguinal regions of camels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of the Sedative and Anti-nociceptive Effects of Sacrococcygeal Epidural Administration of Romifidine, Lidocaine, and Romifidine/Lidocaine in the Dromedary Camel

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter can result from a lesion in the neuronal structures of the peripheral and central nervous system (CNS), where it triggers aberrant somatosensorial processing [21,27,50].…”

Section: Neurophysiological Pathway Of Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first results from the activation or sensibilization of nociceptors in the periphery that transduce the harmful stimulus, and concludes with activation of various supraspinal objectives that modulate the nociception and lead the individual to experience pain. The latter can result from a lesion in the neuronal structures of the peripheral and central nervous system (CNS), where it triggers aberrant somatosensorial processing [ 21 , 27 , 50 ].…”

Section: Neurophysiological Pathway Of Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nociceptive pain and anxiety in equines: Physiological and behavioral alterations

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain and anxiety are two of the most important concerns in clinical veterinary medicine because they arise as consequences of multiple factors that can severely affect animal welfare. The aim of the present review was to provide a description and interpretation of the physiological and behavioral alterations associated with pain and anxiety in equines. To this end, we conducted an extensive review of diverse sources on the topic. The article begins by describing the neurophysiological pathway of pain, followed by a discussion of the importance of the limbic system in responses to pain and anxiety, since prolonged exposure to situations that cause stress and pain generates such physiological changes as tachycardia, tachypnea, hypertension, hyperthermia, and heart rate variability (HRV), often accompanied by altered emotional states, deficient rest, and even aggressiveness. In the long term, animals may show deficiencies in their ability to deal with changes in the environment due to alterations in the functioning of their immune, nervous, and endocrinologic systems. In conclusion, pain and anxiety directly impact the homeostasis of organisms, so it is necessary to conduct objective evaluations of both sensations using behavioral scales, like the horse grimace scale, complemented by assessments of blood biomarkers to analyze their correlation with physiological parameters: Heart rate, respiratory rate, HRV, the parasympathetic tone activity index, lactate and glucose levels, and temperature. Additional tools – infrared thermography, for example – can also be used in these efforts to improve the quality of life and welfare of horses.

show abstract

“…ballpoint pen) is often used to assess if perineural analgesia has been adequately performed (Bassage & Ross, 2010; Schumacher & Schramme, 2019). More recently, algometers, instruments that allow measurement of the pressure applied, have been used to test skin sensation in the research setting (Gozalo‐Marcilla et al, 2020; Hinnigan et al, 2014; Hoerdemann et al, 2017; Jordana et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound‐guided perineural injection of the tibial nerve in the horse versus a ‘blind’ technique

Bellitto

Voûte

Reardon³

et al. 2023

Equine Veterinary Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackgroundTibial perineural analgesia has often been reported to fail to achieve nerve desensitisation in horses. Ultrasound‐guided (US‐guided) techniques have recently been described to improve tibial perineural desensitisation.ObjectivesTo compare US‐guided and ‘blind’ tibial perineural analgesia techniques in lameness investigation.Study designRandomised clinical trial.MethodsHorses presenting for lameness investigation, which required tibial perineural analgesia, were randomly assigned either to a US‐guided or blind injection group. The efficacy of perineural analgesia was assessed by testing the loss of skin sensation at the medial and lateral heel bulbs. Skin sensation was assessed, prior to injection and then at four intervals post‐injection (10–15, 20–25, 30–35 and 40–45 min) using a hand‐held digital algometer with a 1 mm diameter pin; a value of 25 N was defined as indicative of skin desensitisation. The time taken to perform each injection technique and any adverse reactions were recorded. Summary statistics were performed to examine differences between groups. The frequency of skin desensitisation was compared between groups using a Fisher's exact test and the length of time taken to perform injections was compared using a Mann–Whitney U test.ResultsSixteen US‐guided and 11 blind injections were included in the study. All cases undergoing US‐guided injection lost skin sensation, whereas this occurred in only one case receiving the blind injection. The US‐guided group had a significantly higher probability of skin sensation loss (p < 0.001), although the injection technique took significantly longer to complete compared to the blind group (p < 0.001). No adverse reactions were noted with either perineural injection technique.Main limitationsLimited number of cases for each injection group.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that US‐guided tibial perineural injection is more likely to result in adequate and prompt tibial perineural analgesia compared to the blind injection technique, although it takes longer to complete.

show abstract

Thermal, mechanical and electrical stimuli in antinociceptive studies in standing horses: an update

Cited by 10 publications

References 75 publications

Comparative Study of the Sedative and Anti-nociceptive Effects of Sacrococcygeal Epidural Administration of Romifidine, Lidocaine, and Romifidine/Lidocaine in the Dromedary Camel

Comparative Study of the Sedative and Anti-nociceptive Effects of Sacrococcygeal Epidural Administration of Romifidine, Lidocaine, and Romifidine/Lidocaine in the Dromedary Camel

Nociceptive pain and anxiety in equines: Physiological and behavioral alterations

Ultrasound‐guided perineural injection of the tibial nerve in the horse versus a ‘blind’ technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About