Quantitative sensory testing of the equine face.
- Veres-Nyéki KO Anaesthesiology Division, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Längassstrasse 124, Bern, 3001, Switzerland.
- Nyéki J KDV Hungária Ltd, Mahóca domb 1, Varbó, 3778, Hungary.
- Bodó G Equine Department and Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Üllő, Dóra major, 2225, Hungary.
- Spadavecchia C Anaesthesiology Division, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Längassstrasse 124, Bern, 3001, Switzerland.
- 2020-04-20
Published in:
- Equine veterinary journal. - 2020
horse
mechanical nociceptive threshold
quantitative sensory testing
tactile sensory threshold
thermal nociceptive threshold
trigeminal
English
BACKGROUND
Quantitative sensory testing methods are now standard in the evaluation of sensory function in humans, while few normal equine values have been reported.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this experimental study was 1) to define the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds of the equine face; 2) to assess the effect of age, sex, stimulation site and shaving; 3) to evaluate the reliability of the methods and 4) to provide reference facial quantitative sensory testing values.
STUDY DESIGN
Method description.
METHODS
Thirty-four healthy Warmblood horses were used in the study. Six (tactile sensory threshold) and 5 (mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds) areas of the left side of the face with clear anatomical landmarks were evaluated. Ten horses had 2 (mechanical nociceptive threshold) or 3 (tactile sensory and thermal nociceptive thresholds) of these areas shaved for another study. A linear Mixed model was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
All thresholds increased with age (tactile sensory threshold: by 0.90 g/year (CI=[0.12 g; 0.36 g]) P=0.001; mechanical nociceptive threshold: by 0.25 N/year (CI=[0.13-0.36 N]) P=0.000; thermal nociceptive threshold: by 0.2 °C/year (CI=[0.055-0.361]) P=0.008). Sex had no effect on thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P=0.1; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P= 0.09; thermal nociceptive threshold: P= 0.2). Stimulation site affected tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (P=0.001 and P=0.008), but not thermal nociceptive threshold (P=0.9). Shaving had no significant effect on any of the thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P=0.06; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P=0.08; thermal nociceptive threshold: P=0.09).
MAIN LIMITATIONS
Only the left side was investigated and measurements were obtained on a single occasion.
CONCLUSIONS
Hand-held quantitative sensory testing does not require shaving or clipping to provide reliable measurements. Stimulation over the nostril (tactile sensory threshold), temporomandibular joint (mechanical nociceptive threshold) and supraorbital foramen (thermal nociceptive threshold) resulted in the most consistent thresholds.
Quantitative sensory testing methods are now standard in the evaluation of sensory function in humans, while few normal equine values have been reported.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this experimental study was 1) to define the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds of the equine face; 2) to assess the effect of age, sex, stimulation site and shaving; 3) to evaluate the reliability of the methods and 4) to provide reference facial quantitative sensory testing values.
STUDY DESIGN
Method description.
METHODS
Thirty-four healthy Warmblood horses were used in the study. Six (tactile sensory threshold) and 5 (mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds) areas of the left side of the face with clear anatomical landmarks were evaluated. Ten horses had 2 (mechanical nociceptive threshold) or 3 (tactile sensory and thermal nociceptive thresholds) of these areas shaved for another study. A linear Mixed model was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
All thresholds increased with age (tactile sensory threshold: by 0.90 g/year (CI=[0.12 g; 0.36 g]) P=0.001; mechanical nociceptive threshold: by 0.25 N/year (CI=[0.13-0.36 N]) P=0.000; thermal nociceptive threshold: by 0.2 °C/year (CI=[0.055-0.361]) P=0.008). Sex had no effect on thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P=0.1; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P= 0.09; thermal nociceptive threshold: P= 0.2). Stimulation site affected tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (P=0.001 and P=0.008), but not thermal nociceptive threshold (P=0.9). Shaving had no significant effect on any of the thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P=0.06; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P=0.08; thermal nociceptive threshold: P=0.09).
MAIN LIMITATIONS
Only the left side was investigated and measurements were obtained on a single occasion.
CONCLUSIONS
Hand-held quantitative sensory testing does not require shaving or clipping to provide reliable measurements. Stimulation over the nostril (tactile sensory threshold), temporomandibular joint (mechanical nociceptive threshold) and supraorbital foramen (thermal nociceptive threshold) resulted in the most consistent thresholds.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- hybrid
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1111/evj.13270
- PMID 32306423
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/187251
Statistics
Document views: 31
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0