Mechanical nociceptive thresholds in endurance horses

Pressure pain mapping of equine distal joints: feasibility and reliability

Background

Osteoarthritis is a prevalent degenerative joint disease initiating chronic pain and lameness in horses. While several objective gait analysis systems have been developed and validated to quantify lameness severity in horses, methods to evaluate whether peripheral sensitization contributes to the pain experienced are missing.

Objectives

To evaluate whether periarticular pressure pain mapping could be proposed as an auxiliary assessment tool in horses. Specific aims were to evaluate the feasibility and intra- and inter-rater reliability of pressure pain thresholds (PPT) determination at sites overlying the distal thoracic limb joints of clinically healthy horses.

Study design

Prospective, randomized validation study.

Methods

For feasibility assessment, PPT were measured with a hand-held digital algometer at six periarticular landmarks (2 sites per joint, 3 joints) bilaterally on the distal thoracic limb of 40 healthy horses (20 warmblood and 20 Freiberger). The joints tested were the metacarpophalangeal, on the latero-palmar and dorsal aspects (L-MCP and D-MCP), the proximal interphalangeal, on the dorsal and palmar aspect (D-PIP and P-PIP) and the distal interphalangeal, on the dorsal and lateral aspect (D-DIP and L-DIP). A feasibility score, ranging from 0 to 5, was attributed to each testing session. For intra- and inter-rater reliability assessment, L-MCP and D-MCP were selected to be tested again at 2 weeks intervals in 20 out of the 40 horses. Data were analyzed using a mixed-effect linear model to test differences in threshold per site and limb. Intra- and inter-rater correlation was calculated. Bland-Altman plots were performed to evaluate the variability of the measures.

Results

The procedure was considered feasible (score <2) in 95% of horses (95% CI 88%-100%). Overall, median [interquartile range (IQR)] PPT was 9.4 (7.5-11.3) N. No significant side differences were found. P-PIP and D-DIP recorded significantly lower PPT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) than L-MCP. Median (IQR) were 9.9 (7.3-12.4) N, 8.4 (6.1-10.5) N and 9.0 (7.4-10.6) N for L-MCP, P-PIP and D-DIP, respectively. The intra-rater agreement was 0.68 (95% CI 0.35-0.86) for L-MCP, and 0.50 (95% CI 0.08-0.76) for D-MCP. Inter-rater agreement was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.94) for L-MCP and 0.81 (0.57, 0.92) for D-MCP.

Main limitations

Evaluation of feasibility was performed only for distal thoracic limbs joints; no data are provided for hind limbs or proximal joints. Only warmblood and Freiberger horses were included. Intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments were performed exclusively on data collected at the MCP joint.

Conclusion

Pressure pain mapping of distal thoracic limb joints was feasible in horses. Local sensitivity differed among sites and no side differences were noticed. Data collected from the MCP joint suggest highly variable, subject dependent intra-rater reliability, ranging from poor to good, and good to excellent inter-rater reliability. Further studies evaluating pathologic vs. healthy joints are needed before recommendations can be made about clinical usability and diagnostic validity.

On determining the mechanical nociceptive threshold in pigs: a reliability study

Background

A pressure algometer is a valuable tool for assessing the mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) in clinical pain studies. Recent research has turned to large animal models of pain because of the closer anatomy and physiology to humans. Although the reliability and usefulness of the MNT have been extensively validated in humans, similar data from large animals is still sparse.

Objective

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the reliability (within- and between-session) of MNT in the forelimb of pigs using a pressure algometer.

Methods

Nine animals were used (23-40 kg), and MNTs were measured at both the right and left limbs at three different sessions, with three repetitions per session. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used as a metric for relative reliability. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) was used to assess absolute reliability. Systematic bias was also evaluated.

Results

The average ICC was found to be 0.71 and 0.45 for the between-session and within-session, respectively. CV ranged from 17.9% to 20.5%, with a grand average of 19.1%. The grand average SEM was 249.5 kPa (16.6%). No systematic differences were found for the MNT between sessions, which suggests that there was no habituation to the stimulus.

Conclusion

The reliability indices obtained in this study are comparable to results obtained in other species or anatomical regions and substantiate the use of the pressure algometer as a valuable tool to investigate the nociceptive system in pigs and translation to the human nociceptive withdrawal reflex.

Pressure Algometry for the Detection of Mechanical Nociceptive Thresholds in Horses

Simple Summary

It is difficult to measure pain in horses. As animals are not able to verbalize what they feel, we are left with trying to interpret the different signs that they display when they are in pain. Many of these signs are vague (e.g., not eating their food), but some are more readily identified if the animal moves away or lifts their leg when pressure is applied to a sensitive area. Pressure algometry is a tool used to detect responses to applied mechanical stimuli within painful and nonpainful tissues. Pressure algometry has been used in many different studies, but there is no consensus on how to synthesize this information to better diagnose and treat pain in horses. The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of these studies. Based on that review, we conclude that there is good evidence that pressure algometry is a reliable and objective method to measure pain responses. This information will help to improve the diagnosis and treatment of pain in horses.

Abstract

The clinical assessment of pain is subjective; therefore, variations exist between practitioners in their ability to identify and localize pain. Due to differing interpretations of the signs or severity of pain equine practitioners may assign varying levels of clinical significance and treatment options. There is a critical need to develop better tools to qualify and quantify pain in horses. Palpation is the most common method to detect local tenderness or sensitivity. To quantify this applied pressure, pressure algometry has been used to gradually apply pressure over specified landmarks until an avoidance response is noted, which is defined as the mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT). Numerous studies have used pressure algometry in different applications to measure MNTs in horses. There is an acute need to establish normative values within different body regions and to develop standardized methods of testing MNTs to better guide practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of pain. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence for the use of pressure algometry in horses. There is good evidence that pressure algometry is a repeatable, semi-objective method that can be used in a wide array of clinical and research applications to assess MNTs in horses.

Remote Controlled Nociceptive Threshold Testing Systems in Large Animals

Simple Summary

Measurement of the nociceptive threshold (NT) is widely used in the study of pain and its alleviation. This records the intensity of a stimulus that causes pain to the test subject. The end point of the test that indicates when the subject experiences pain, the NT, is a behavioural escape response. Detection of a reliable and repeatable response depends on the animal behaving normally throughout testing. Restraint and an unfamiliar environment may prevent the animal from displaying normal behaviour and impede acquisition of robust NTs. Remotely controlled testing enables NT data to be collected from unrestrained animals behaving normally. Development of a remote controlled system for measurement of thermal and mechanical NTs in a range of large animal species is described. Normal “baseline” thermal and mechanical NTs from untreated animals are reported. This information can be used to improve both the welfare of the animals under investigation and the quality of the data collected. Remote controlled systems are now in use worldwide in both the study of pain physiology and in developing new pharmaceutical and non-drug-based methods of pain relief.

Abstract

Nociceptive threshold (NT) testing is widely used for the study of pain and its alleviation. The end point is a normal behavioural response, which may be affected by restraint or unfamiliar surroundings, leading to erroneous data. Remotely controlled thermal and mechanical NT testing systems were developed to allow free movement during testing and were evaluated in cats, dogs, sheep, horses and camels. Thermal threshold (TT) testing incorporated a heater and temperature sensor held against the animal’s shaved skin. Mechanical threshold (MT) testing incorporated a pneumatic actuator attached to a limb containing a 1–2 mm radiused pin pushed against the skin. Both stimuli were driven from battery powered control units attached on the animal’s back, controlled remotely via infra-red radiation from a handheld component. Threshold reading was held automatically and displayed digitally on the unit. The system was failsafe with a safety cut-out at a preset temperature or force as appropriate. The animals accepted the equipment and behaved normally in their home environment, enabling recording of reproducible TT (38.5–49.8 °C) and MT (2.7–10.1 N); precise values depended on the species, the individual and the stimulus characteristics. Remote controlled NT threshold testing appears to be a viable refinement for pain research.