Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:41:53.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of a hand-held algometer as a method to measure mechanical nociceptive thresholds in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SM Stubsj⊘en ,
PS Valle  and
AJ Zanella
SM Stubsj⊘en*
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146, Dep NO-0033 Oslo, Norway Animalia, PO Box 396, Økern, NO-0513 Oslo, Norway
PS Valle
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146, Dep NO-0033 Oslo, Norway Molde University College, PO Box 2110, NO-6402 Molde, Norway
AJ Zanella
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146, Dep NO-0033 Oslo, Norway
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: solveigmarie.stubsjoen@nvh.no
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of this study was to explore the use of a hand-held algometer for the measurement of mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNT) in sheep (Ovis aries). Twelve ewes were tested over three consecutive days by two operators, and MNTs were measured over six predetermined sites on both forelimbs every five minutes for 30 min. The effects of test period, measurement number within test period and different anatomical points on MNT levels were investigated, in addition to establishing baseline MNT levels for the sheeps’ forelimbs. A significant decrease of MNT values was observed over the three consecutive test days and within each test period. The anatomical points located closest to the carpus and fetlock joints had significantly higher MNT values compared to the anatomical points located over the middle part of the metacarpus, possibly due to the protective function of the distal part of the extensor retinaculum and the dorsal pouch of the fetlock joint capsules. There was no difference in MNT values between the right and left foreleg. There was a tendency for a flattening out of the drop in MNT towards the last measurement. Hence, we suggest using the values from the last two measurements when determining normative values, and to habituate the ewes to the procedure of measuring MNT levels. Taking these factors into consideration, a hand-held algometer is a useful tool to measure MNTs in sheep.

Keywords

algometeranimal welfaremechanical nociceptive thresholdmetacarpuspainsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 31 - 36
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Chambers, JP, Waterman, AE and Livingston, A 1994 Further development of equipment to measure nociceptive thresholds in large animals. Journal of Veterinary Anaesthesia 21: 66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyce, KM, Sack, WO and Wensing, CJG 1996 Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy. The Forelimb of the Ruminants pp 737–757. WB Saunders: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Fischer, AA 1987 Pressure algometry over normal muscles: standard values, validity and reproducibility of pressure threshold. Pain 30: 115–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grönblad, M, Liesi, P, Korkala, O, Karaharju, E and Polak, J 1984 Innervation of human bone periosteum by peptidergic nerves. The Anatomical Record 209: 297–299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haussler, KK, Hill, AE, Frisbie, DD and McIlwraith, CW 2007 Determination and use of mechanical nociceptive thresholds of the thoracic limb to assess pain associated with induced osteoarthritis of the middle carpal joint in horses. American Journal of Veterinary Research 68: 1167–1176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, K, Andersen, HO, Olesen, J and Lindblom, U 1986 Pressure-pain threshold in human temporal region. Evaluation of a new algometer. Pain 25: 313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, DH, Kilgour, RD and Comtois, AS 2007 Test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold measurements of the upper limb and torso in young healthy women. The Journal of Pain 8: 650–656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, de Boer, SF, Van der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW and Blokhuis, HJ 1999 Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 23: 925–935CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
List, T, Helkimo, M and Karlsson, R 1991 Influence of pressure rates on the reliability of a pressure threshold meter. Journal of Craniomandibular Disorders 5: 173–178Google ScholarPubMed
Nolan, A, Livingston, A, Morris, R and Waterman, A 1987 Techniques for comparison of thermal and mechanical nociceptive stimuli in the sheep. Journal of Pharmacological Methods 17: 39–49Google ScholarPubMed
Potter, L, McCarthy, C and Oldham, J 2006 Algometer reliability in measuring pain pressure threshold over normal spinal muscles to allow quantification of anti-nociceptive treatment effects. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 9: 113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasbash, J, Steele, F, Browne, WJ and Prosser, P 2005 A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0. Centre for Multilevel Modelling. University of Bristol: Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Rolke, R, Andrews Campbell, K, Magerl, W and Treede, RD 2005 Deep pain thresholds in the distal limbs of healthy human subjects. European Journal of Pain 9: 39–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slingsby, LS, Jones, A and Waterman-Pearson, AE 2001 Use of a new finger-mounted device to compare mechanical nociceptive thresholds in cats given pethidine or no medication after castration. Research in Veterinary Science 70: 243–246Google ScholarPubMed