Analyze Diet
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia2003; 30(3); 156-164; doi: 10.1046/j.1467-2995.2003.00145.x

A comparison of the analgesic effects of caudal epidural methadone and lidocaine in the horse.

Abstract: To evaluate and compare the effects of caudal epidural administration of methadone (METH) and lidocaine (LIDO) on tolerance to thermal stimulation over the dermatomes of the perineal, sacral, lumbar and thoracic regions in the horse. Methods: A blinded, randomized, prospective, experimental cross-over study. Methods: Seven healthy horses, 15.7 +/- 4.9 years (mean +/- SD) of age, weighing 536 +/- 37 kg. Methods: The horses were randomly assigned to receive two treatments (group M: METH, 0.1 mg kg-1 or group L: LIDO, 0.35 mg kg-1) at intervals of at least 28 days. An 18-gauge 80-mm Tuohy epidural needle was placed in the first intercoccygeal space (Co1-Co2) in awake standing horses restrained in stocks. Analgesia was assessed by use of a probe maintained at a constant 62 degrees C by circulating hot water. The maximum stimulation time was 30 seconds. Bilateral stimulation was performed at five defined points. Before drug administration, baseline values of response time to thermal stimuli were obtained. Time to response was then measured 15 and 60 minutes after METH or LIDO administration and then hourly until the response returned to baseline at all stimulation points on two further assessments. Development of any ataxia and/or sedation was recorded. Positive pain responses were defined as purposeful avoidance movements of the head, neck, trunk, limbs and tail. Absence of attempts to kick, bite and turning of the head toward the stimulation site were used to indicate analgesia. Results: Caudal epidural administration of METH and LIDO significantly increased reaction time to thermal stimulation (one-sample t-test; p = 0.05). Analgesia in the perineal region was present 15 minutes after both METH and LIDO administration and progressed from caudal to cranial dermatones with time. The duration of a significant increase in reaction time was 5 hours after METH injection compared to 3 hours following LIDO. All horses defaecated and urinated normally, and no excitement, sedation or ataxia were observed after METH administration. The horses were unable to defaecate normally and were moderately to severely ataxic with hindlimb weakness after LIDO. Conclusions: Caudal epidural administration of methadone has considerable potential in the management of perineal, lumbo-sacral and thoracic pain in horses. Regional differences exist in the onset, duration and intensity of the pain relief. Conclusions: Epidural methadone administration provides analgesia with no measured side effects in these healthy adult horses.
Publication Date: 2003-09-23 PubMed ID: 14498847DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-2995.2003.00145.xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research investigates the effects of methadone and lidocaine, when given via caudal epidural administration, on horses’ pain endurance related to thermal stimulation across different body regions. The study concludes that methadone provides analgesia effectively without any observed negative effects.

Research Purpose

  • The core purpose of this study was to assess and compare the impacts of methadone (METH) and lidocane (LIDO), given via caudal epidural injections, on horses’ tolerance to thermal stimulation in four areas: perineal, sacral, lumbar and thoracic.

Methodology

  • Seven healthy horses aged around 15.7 years and with an average weight of 536kg were included in the study.
  • The researchers ran a randomized, prospective, experimental cross-over study, with the horses divided into two groups: group M was given Methadone at a dose of 0.1 mg per kg of body weight, and group L was given lidocaine at a rate of 0.35 mg per kg.
  • The treatments were administered at intervals of at least 28 days.
  • An 18-gauge 80-mm Tuohy epidural needle was used to perform the epidural injections in the first intercoccygeal space (Co1-Co2) of the awake horses.
  • The degree of analgesia was evaluated using a probe kept at a steady 62 degrees Celsius temperature.
  • Reaction times to thermal stimuli before and at different time intervals after the drug administration were noted.
  • Any behavior changes or abnormal physical responses in horses were also recorded.

Results

  • Both METH and LIDO notably increased the horse’s tolerance to thermal pain (p = 0.05).
  • Analgesic effects were observed in the perineal region 15 minutes post-injection and gradually extended to other regions with time.
  • METH provided an extended period of analgesia (5 hours) as compared to LIDO (3 hours).
  • No adverse effects were witnessed following methadone administration, while horses receiving lidocaine exhibited signs of ataxia and had issues with defecation.

Conclusion

  • The research concludes that methadone, when administered caudaly, can be beneficial in managing pain in different body regions of horses.
  • Regional variances exist in the onset, length and intensity of the pain relief experienced.
  • Importantly, methadone showed analgesic effects without producing any noticeable harmful effects in the horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Olbrich VH, Mosing M. (2003). A comparison of the analgesic effects of caudal epidural methadone and lidocaine in the horse. Vet Anaesth Analg, 30(3), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2995.2003.00145.x

Publication

ISSN: 1467-2987
NlmUniqueID: 100956422
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 30
Issue: 3
Pages: 156-164

Researcher Affiliations

Olbrich, Veronika H
  • Clinic of Internal Medicine for Ungulates and Small Animals, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria. veronika.olbrich@vu-wien.ac.at
Mosing, Martina

    MeSH Terms

    • Analgesia, Epidural / methods
    • Analgesia, Epidural / standards
    • Analgesia, Epidural / veterinary
    • Analgesics, Opioid / administration & dosage
    • Anesthetics, Local / administration & dosage
    • Anesthetics, Local / adverse effects
    • Animals
    • Ataxia / chemically induced
    • Ataxia / veterinary
    • Cross-Over Studies
    • Defecation / drug effects
    • Double-Blind Method
    • Female
    • Horses / physiology
    • Hot Temperature
    • Injections, Epidural / veterinary
    • Lidocaine / administration & dosage
    • Lidocaine / adverse effects
    • Male
    • Methadone / administration & dosage
    • Pain Measurement / methods
    • Pain Measurement / veterinary
    • Pilot Projects
    • Prospective Studies

    Citations

    This article has been cited 4 times.
    1. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses. Animals (Basel) 2023 Apr 28;13(9).
      doi: 10.3390/ani13091507pubmed: 37174544google scholar: lookup
    2. Shepard MK, Lee WL, Eggleston RB. Perianesthetic development of diaphragmatic hernia in a horse with equine pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction (PPID). Can Vet J 2015 Jan;56(1):48-52.
      pubmed: 25565714
    3. Lauretti GR, Rizzo CC, Mattos AL, Rodrigues SW. Epidural methadone results in dose-dependent analgesia in cancer pain, further enhanced by epidural dexamethasone. Br J Cancer 2013 Feb 5;108(2):259-64.
      doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.593pubmed: 23322191google scholar: lookup
    4. Hincker A, Reschke M, Ginosar Y, Kagan L, Kharasch ED, Siemiątkowska A, Park C, Bakos K, Ben-Abdallah A, Haroutounian S. Epidural methadone and morphine pharmacokinetics and clinical effects in healthy volunteers: A randomized, crossover-design trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2024 Nov;90(11):2883-2896.
      doi: 10.1111/bcp.16178pubmed: 39049497google scholar: lookup