Cargando…

Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability and repeatability of measures of mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets and to examine potentially confounding factors when using a hand held algometer. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective cohort. ANIMALS: Forty-four piglets from four litters, weighing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Janczak, Andrew M, Ranheim, Birgit, Fosse, Torunn K, Hild, Sophie, Nordgreen, Janicke, Moe, Randi O, Zanella, Adroaldo J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2012.00737.x
_version_ 1782261338954792960
author Janczak, Andrew M
Ranheim, Birgit
Fosse, Torunn K
Hild, Sophie
Nordgreen, Janicke
Moe, Randi O
Zanella, Adroaldo J
author_facet Janczak, Andrew M
Ranheim, Birgit
Fosse, Torunn K
Hild, Sophie
Nordgreen, Janicke
Moe, Randi O
Zanella, Adroaldo J
author_sort Janczak, Andrew M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability and repeatability of measures of mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets and to examine potentially confounding factors when using a hand held algometer. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective cohort. ANIMALS: Forty-four piglets from four litters, weighing 4.6 ± 1.0 kg (mean ± SD) at 2 weeks of age. METHODS: Mechanical thresholds were measured twice on each of 2 days during the first and second week of life. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures design to test the effects of behavior prior to testing, sex, week, day within week, and repetition within day. The effect of body weight and the interaction between piglet weight and behaviour were also tested. Piglet was entered into the model as a random effect as an additional test of repeatability. The effect of repeated testing was used to test the stability of measures. Pearson correlations between repeated measures were used to test the repeatability of measures. Variance component analysis was used to describe the variability in the data. RESULTS: Variance component analysis indicated that piglet explained only 17% of the variance in the data. All variables in the model (behaviour prior to testing, sex, week, day within week, repetition within day, body weight, the interaction between body weight and behaviour, piglet identity) except sex had a significant effect (p < 0.04 for all). Correlations between repeated measures increased from the first to the second week. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Repeatability was acceptable only during the second week of testing and measures changed with repeated testing and increased with increasing piglet weight, indicating that time (age) and animal body weight should be taken into account when measuring mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets. Mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds can be used both for testing the efficacy of anaesthetics and analgesics, and for assessing hyperalgesia in chronic pain states in research and clinical settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3586661
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35866612013-03-04 Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets Janczak, Andrew M Ranheim, Birgit Fosse, Torunn K Hild, Sophie Nordgreen, Janicke Moe, Randi O Zanella, Adroaldo J Vet Anaesth Analg Analgesia OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability and repeatability of measures of mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets and to examine potentially confounding factors when using a hand held algometer. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective cohort. ANIMALS: Forty-four piglets from four litters, weighing 4.6 ± 1.0 kg (mean ± SD) at 2 weeks of age. METHODS: Mechanical thresholds were measured twice on each of 2 days during the first and second week of life. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures design to test the effects of behavior prior to testing, sex, week, day within week, and repetition within day. The effect of body weight and the interaction between piglet weight and behaviour were also tested. Piglet was entered into the model as a random effect as an additional test of repeatability. The effect of repeated testing was used to test the stability of measures. Pearson correlations between repeated measures were used to test the repeatability of measures. Variance component analysis was used to describe the variability in the data. RESULTS: Variance component analysis indicated that piglet explained only 17% of the variance in the data. All variables in the model (behaviour prior to testing, sex, week, day within week, repetition within day, body weight, the interaction between body weight and behaviour, piglet identity) except sex had a significant effect (p < 0.04 for all). Correlations between repeated measures increased from the first to the second week. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Repeatability was acceptable only during the second week of testing and measures changed with repeated testing and increased with increasing piglet weight, indicating that time (age) and animal body weight should be taken into account when measuring mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets. Mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds can be used both for testing the efficacy of anaesthetics and analgesics, and for assessing hyperalgesia in chronic pain states in research and clinical settings. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3586661/ /pubmed/22709378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2012.00737.x Text en © 2012 The Authors. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. © 2012 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists and the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
spellingShingle Analgesia
Janczak, Andrew M
Ranheim, Birgit
Fosse, Torunn K
Hild, Sophie
Nordgreen, Janicke
Moe, Randi O
Zanella, Adroaldo J
Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title_full Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title_fullStr Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title_full_unstemmed Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title_short Factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
title_sort factors affecting mechanical (nociceptive) thresholds in piglets
topic Analgesia
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2012.00737.x
work_keys_str_mv AT janczakandrewm factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT ranheimbirgit factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT fossetorunnk factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT hildsophie factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT nordgreenjanicke factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT moerandio factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets
AT zanellaadroaldoj factorsaffectingmechanicalnociceptivethresholdsinpiglets