Assessing experimental visceral pain in dairy cattle: A pilot, prospective, blinded, randomized, and controlled study focusing on spinal pain proteomics

24Citations
Citations of this article
97Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Few studies have verified the validity of behavioral and physiological methods of pain assessment in cattle. This prospective, blinded, randomized controlled experimental study aimed to validate different methods of pain assessment during acute and chronic (up to 21 d postintervention) conditions in dairy cattle, in response to 3 analgesic treatments for traumatic reticuloperitonitis. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and mechanical sensitization were measured as indicators of centralized pain. Proteomics in the CSF were examined to detect specific (to pain intensity) and sensitive (responsive to analgesia) markers. Recordings of spontaneous behavior with video analysis, telemetered motor activity, pain scales, electrodermal activity, and plasma cortisol concentration were quantified at regular intervals. Cows were assigned to group 1 (n. = 4, standard control receiving aspirin), group 2 (n. = 5, test group receiving preemptive tolfenamic acid), or group 3 (n. = 3, positive control receiving preemptive multimodal analgesia composed of epidural morphine, plus tolfenamic acid and butorphanol). Rescue analgesia was administered as needed. Generalized estimating equations tested group differences and the influence of rescue analgesia on the measurements. All 3 groups demonstrated a long-term decrease in a CSF protein identified as transthyretin. The decrease in transthyretin expression inversely correlated with the expected level of analgesia (group 1.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rialland, P., Otis, C., de Courval, M. L., Mulon, P. Y., Harvey, D., Bichot, S., … Troncy, E. (2014). Assessing experimental visceral pain in dairy cattle: A pilot, prospective, blinded, randomized, and controlled study focusing on spinal pain proteomics. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(4), 2118–2134. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7142

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free