Display options
Cite
Ruel HL, Watanabe R, Evangelista MC, et al. Feasibility and reliability of electrical, mechanical and thermal nociceptive testing and assessment of diffuse noxious inhibitory control in dogs. J Pain Res. 2018;11:2491-2496doi: 10.2147/JPR.S164483.
Ruel, H. L., Watanabe, R., Evangelista, M. C., Beauchamp, G., & Steagall, P. V. (2018). Feasibility and reliability of electrical, mechanical and thermal nociceptive testing and assessment of diffuse noxious inhibitory control in dogs. Journal of pain research, 112491-2496. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S164483
Ruel, Hélène Lm, et al. "Feasibility and reliability of electrical, mechanical and thermal nociceptive testing and assessment of diffuse noxious inhibitory control in dogs." Journal of pain research vol. 11 (2018): 2491-2496. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S164483
Ruel HL, Watanabe R, Evangelista MC, Beauchamp G, Steagall PV. Feasibility and reliability of electrical, mechanical and thermal nociceptive testing and assessment of diffuse noxious inhibitory control in dogs. J Pain Res. 2018 Oct 23;11:2491-2496. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S164483. eCollection 2018. PMID: 30425561; PMCID: PMC6205141.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Pain Res. 2018 Oct 23;11:2491-2496. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S164483. eCollection 2018.

Feasibility and reliability of electrical, mechanical and thermal nociceptive testing and assessment of diffuse noxious inhibitory control in dogs.

Journal of pain research

Hélène Lm Ruel, Ryota Watanabe, Marina C Evangelista, Guy Beauchamp, Paulo V Steagall

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada, [email protected].
  2. Quebec Animal Pharmacology Research Group, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada, [email protected].
  3. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.

PMID: 30425561 PMCID: PMC6205141 DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S164483

Abstract

PURPOSE: Quantitative sensory testing has been used to assess the somatosensory system. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of electrical (ENT), mechanical (MNT) and thermal (TNT) nociceptive testing and the effect of a conditioning stimulus on MNT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen healthy client-owned dogs were included in this study. Stimulation was applied bilaterally to the dorsal and plantar aspect of the metacarpus and metatarsus respectively, using transcutaneous electrical stimulator, algometry and a cold nociceptive device in a randomized order until a behavior response was observed or a cut-off reached. Tests were performed twice (60 seconds apart) by two observers. Retesting was performed 5 hours later. The diffuse noxious inhibitory control was tested by comparing MNT pre- and post-conditioning stimuli. Sham-testing was performed for ENT and TNT. Statistical analysis included linear model and intra-class correlation coefficient (

RESULTS: Feasibility was 99% (ENT), 93.5% (MNT) and 93.6% (TNT). Data for TNT were not analyzed due to inconsistent results. Mean ± SD were 48±22.6 mA (ENT) and 11.9±3.5 N (MNT). MNT was higher for thoracic than for pelvic limbs (

CONCLUSION: ENT was feasible, repeatable and superior to MNT and TNT. The assessment of the diffuse noxious inhibitory control with a conditioning stimulus showed promising results in dogs. These tools could be used in naturally-occurring disease to provide insight on their underlying mechanisms and therapeutics.

Keywords: canine; diffuse noxious inhibitory controls; electrical threshold; mechanical threshold; quantitative sensory testing; thermal threshold

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure Hélène LM Ruel is the recipient of the Mitacs Accelerate Program which is partly sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. Brain Res. 1981 Jul 20;216(2):313-21 - PubMed
  2. J Vet Intern Med. 2016 Mar-Apr;30(2):627-35 - PubMed
  3. Vet J. 2014 Jan;199(1):63-7 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Pain. 2017 Mar;21(3):552-561 - PubMed
  5. Physiol Behav. 2010 Oct 5;101(3):327-30 - PubMed
  6. Am J Vet Res. 2007 Jun;68(6):631-7 - PubMed
  7. Exp Neurol. 1985 Mar;87(3):439-45 - PubMed
  8. Vet J. 2014 Feb;199(2):245-50 - PubMed
  9. Pain. 2006 Aug;123(3):231-43 - PubMed
  10. Pain. 1979 Jun;6(3):283-304 - PubMed
  11. J Physiol. 2017 Jul 1;595(13):4159-4166 - PubMed
  12. Neurosci Lett. 2005 Jun 3;380(3):209-13 - PubMed
  13. J Vet Intern Med. 1987 Jul-Sep;1(3):128-35 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Pain. 2015 Jul;19(6):805-6 - PubMed
  15. Vet J. 2015 Apr;204(1):82-7 - PubMed
  16. Pain. 2016 Jun;157(6):1325-32 - PubMed
  17. Front Vet Sci. 2016 Feb 22;3:12 - PubMed
  18. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2017 May;44(3):615-624 - PubMed
  19. J Neurophysiol. 1976 Sep;39(5):936-53 - PubMed
  20. Am J Vet Res. 2007 Aug;68(8):899-907 - PubMed
  21. Pain. 2014 Apr;155(4):663-5 - PubMed
  22. Pain. 1988 Jul;34(1):75-83 - PubMed

Publication Types