FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2020; 53(1); 177-185; doi: 10.1111/evj.13270

Quantitative sensory testing of the equine face.

Abstract: Quantitative sensory testing methods are now standard in the evaluation of sensory function in man, while few normal equine values have been reported. Objective: The aim of this experimental study was (a) to define the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds of the equine face; (b) to assess the effect of age, sex, stimulation site and shaving; (c) to evaluate the reliability of the methods and (d) to provide reference facial quantitative sensory testing values. Methods: Method description. Methods: Thirty-four healthy Warmblood horses were used in the study. Six (tactile sensory threshold) and five (mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds) areas of the left side of the face with clear anatomical landmarks were evaluated. Ten horses had two (mechanical nociceptive threshold) or three (tactile sensory and thermal nociceptive thresholds) of these areas shaved for another study. A linear Mixed model was used for data analysis. Results: All thresholds increased with age (tactile sensory threshold: by 0.90 g/y (CI = [0.12 g; 0.36 g]) P = .001; mechanical nociceptive threshold: by 0.25 N/y (CI = [0.13-0.36 N]) P = .000; thermal nociceptive threshold: by 0.2°C/y (CI = [0.055-0.361]) P = .008). Sex had no effect on thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P = .1; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P = .09; thermal nociceptive threshold: P = .2). Stimulation site affected tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (P = .001 and P = .008), but not thermal nociceptive threshold (P = .9). Shaving had no significant effect on any of the thresholds (tactile sensory threshold: P = .06; mechanical nociceptive threshold: P = .08; thermal nociceptive threshold: P = .09). Conclusions: Only the left side was investigated and measurements were obtained on a single occasion. Conclusions: Handheld quantitative sensory testing does not require shaving or clipping to provide reliable measurements. Stimulation over the nostril (tactile sensory threshold), temporomandibular joint (mechanical nociceptive threshold) and supraorbital foramen (thermal nociceptive threshold) resulted in the most consistent thresholds.
© 2020 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-05-12 PubMed ID: 32306423DOI: 10.1111/evj.13270Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

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 study sought to define and evaluate the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive, and thermal nociceptive thresholds in horse’s facial area, factoring in aspects like age, sex, stimulation site, and shaving, ultimately to establish reference values for equine quantitative sensory testing. Findings reveal an increase in all thresholds with age, no significant effect of sex or shaving on the thresholds, but the stimulation site was crucial for tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds.

Objective and Methodology

  • The purpose of this research was to define and evaluate the tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive and thermal nociceptive thresholds on horses’ faces. Additionally, the investigation assessed the effects of variables like age, sex, stimulation site, and shaving on these thresholds. The ultimate goal was to provide reference facial quantitative sensory testing values, which are currently lacking in equine studies.
  • Thirty-four healthy Warmblood horses were used in the study. Specific areas on the left side of the face marked with clear anatomical landmarks were evaluated. Particular horses had some of these areas shaved for a distinct study. A linear Mixed model was used to analyze the collected data.

Findings

  • The results indicated that all sensory thresholds increased with age. More specifically, tactile sensory threshold increased by 0.90 g/y, mechanical nociceptive threshold by 0.25 N/y, and thermal nociceptive threshold by 0.2°C/y.
  • The study determined that the sex of the horses had no substantial influence on any of the thresholds. Similarly, shaving the horses’ facial areas did not remarkably affect the sensory thresholds.
  • The stimulation site was found to significantly impact the tactile sensory and mechanical nociceptive thresholds. However, the stimulation site did not noticeably affect the thermal nociceptive threshold.

Conclusions

  • The study was limited to the left side of the face, and measurements were carried out only once. Despite this restriction, this research provides valuable insights into quantitative sensory testing in horses.
  • The study concluded that handheld quantitative sensory testing does not necessitate shaving or clipping to yield reliable measurements. Moreover, the researchers identified the nostril, temporomandibular joint, and supraorbital foramen as the most consistent stimulation sites for tactile sensory, mechanical nociceptive, and thermal nociceptive thresholds, respectively.

Cite This Article

APA
Veres-Nyéki KO, Nyéki J, Bodó G, Spadavecchia C. (2020). Quantitative sensory testing of the equine face. Equine Vet J, 53(1), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13270

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 53
Issue: 1
Pages: 177-185

Researcher Affiliations

Veres-Nyéki, Kata O
  • Anaesthesiology Division, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nyéki, József
  • KDV Hungária Ltd, Varbó, Hungary.
Bodó, Gábor
  • Equine Department and Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Üllő, Hungary.
Spadavecchia, Claudia
  • Anaesthesiology Division, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horse Diseases
  • Horses
  • Hot Temperature
  • Pain / veterinary
  • Reference Values
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Sensory Thresholds

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Siao P, Chong T, Cros DP. AAEM practice topic in electrodiagnostic medicine technology literature review: quantitative sensory testing. Muscle Nerve 2004;29:734-47.
  2. Bove G. Mechanical sensory threshold testing using nylon monofilaments: the pain field’s “Tin Standard”. Pain 2006;124:13-7.
  3. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, Tölle TR, Treede RD, Beyer A. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values. Pain 2006;123:231-43.
  4. Stefano GD, Cesa SL, Biasiotta A, Leone C, Pepe A, Cruccu G. Laboratory tools for assessing neuropathic pain. Neurol Sci 2012;33:10-2.
  5. Cruccu G, Sommer C, Anand P, Attal N, Baron R, Garcia-Larrea L. EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009. Eur J Neurol 2010;17:1010-8.
  6. Haussler KK, Erb HN. Pressure algometry for the detection of induced back pain in horses: a preliminary study. Equine Vet J 2006;38:76-81.
  7. Haussler KK, Behre TH, Hill AE. Mechanical nociceptive thresholds within the pastern region of Tennessee Walking Horses. Equine Vet J 2008;40:455-9.
  8. Luna SPL, Lopes C, Rosa AC, Oliveira FA, Crosignani N, Taylor PM. Validation of mechanical, electrical and thermal nociceptive stimulation methods in horses. Equine Vet J 2015;47:609-14.
  9. Poller C, Hopster K, Rohn K, Kästner SB. Evaluation of contact heat thermal threshold testing for standardized assessment of cutaneous nociception in horses - comparison of different locations and environmental conditions. BMC Vet Res 2013;9:4.
  10. Lindegaard C, Vaabengaard D, Christophersen MT, Ekstøm CT, Fjeldborg J. Evaluation of pain and inflammation associated with hot iron branding and microchip transponder injection in horses. Am J Vet Res 2009;7:840-7.
  11. Rédua MA, Valadão CA, Duque JC, Balestrero LT. The pre-emptive effect of epidural ketamine on wound sensitivity in horses tested by using von Frey filaments. Vet Anaesth Analg 2002;29:200-6.
  12. Haussler KK, Erb HN. Mechanical nociceptive thresholds in the axial skeleton of horses. Equine Vet J 2006;38:70-5.
  13. Haussler KK, Hill AE, Frisbie DD, McIlwraith CW. 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. Am J Vet Res 2007;68:1167-76.
  14. Menke ES, Blom G, van Loon JPAM, Back W. Pressure algometry in icelandic horses: interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability. J Equine Vet Sci 2016;36:26-31.
  15. Bell-Krotoski JA, Buford WL. The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instruments. J Hand Ther 1997;10:297-309.
  16. Sanchis-Mora S, Chang Y-M, Abeyesinghe S, Fisher A, Volk HA, Pelligand L. Development and initial validation of a sensory threshold examination protocol (STEP) for phenotyping canine pain syndromes. Vet Anaesth Analg 2017;44:600-14.
  17. Harris LK, Murrell JC, van Klink EGM, Whay HR. Influence of experimental protocol on response rate and repeatability of mechanical threshold testing in dogs. Vet J 2015;204:82-7.
  18. Buchanan HM, Midgley JA. Evaluation of pain threshold using a simple pressure algometer. Clin Rheumatol 1987;6:510-7.
  19. Coleman KD, Schmiedt CW, Kirkby KA, Coleman AE, Robertson SA, Hash J. Learning confounds algometric assessment of mechanical thresholds in normal dogs. Vet Surg 2014;43:361-7.
  20. Love EJ, Murrell J, Whay HR. Thermal and mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in horses: a review. Vet Anaesth Analg 2011;38:3-14.
  21. Poller C, Hopster K, Rohn K, Kastner SB. Nociceptive thermal threshold testing in horses - effect of neuroleptic sedation and neuroleptanalgesia at different stimulation sites. BMC Vet Res 2013;9:135.
  22. Grint NJ, Beths T, Yvorchuk K, Taylor PM, Dixon M, Whay HR. The influence of various confounding factors on mechanical nociceptive thresholds in the donkey. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014;41:421-9.
  23. Walk D, Sehgal N, Moeller-Bertram T, Edwards RR, Wasan A, Wallace M. Quantitative sensory testing and mapping - a review of nonautomated quantitative methods for examination of the patient with neuropathic pain. Clin J Pain 2009;25:632-40.
  24. Keizer D, Fael D, Wierda JMKH, van Wijhe M. Quantitative sensory testing with Von Frey monofilaments in patients with allodynia: what are we quantifying?. Clin J Pain 2008;24:463-6.
  25. Alessandro M, Claudia S, Rupert B, Andreas G, Daniela C. Acute pain and peripheral sensitization following cautery disbudding in 1- and 4-week-old calves. Physiol Behav 2018;184:248-60.
  26. Raundal PM, Andersen PH, Toft N, Forkman B, Munksgaard L, Herskin MS. Handheld mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in dairy cows - intra-individual variation, inter-observer agreement and variation over time. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014;41:660-9.
  27. Selim MM, Wendelschafer-Crabb G, Hodges JS, Simone DA, Foster SXY-L, Vanhove GF. Variation in quantitative sensory testing and epidermal nerve fiber density in repeated measurements. Pain 2010;151:575-81.
  28. Song RB, Basso DM, da Costa RC, Fisher LC, Mo X, Moore SA. Von Frey anesthesiometry to assess sensory impairment after acute spinal cord injury caused by thoracolumbar intervertebral disc extrusion in dogs. Vet J 2016;209:144-9.
  29. Lindegaard C, Vaabengaard D, Christophersen MT, Ekstøm CT, Fjeldborg J. Transponder injection in horses. Am J Vet Res 2009;70:840-7.
  30. Steinhoff-Wagner J. Coat clipping of horses : a survey coat clipping of horses : a survey. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2018;22:171-87.
  31. Taylor PM, Crosignani N, Lopes C, Rosa AC, Luna SPL, Puoli Filho JNP. Mechanical nociceptive thresholds using four probe configurations in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg 2016;43:99-108.
  32. Duan G, Xiang G, Zhang X, Guo S, Zhang Y. An improvement of mechanical pain sensitivity measurement method: the smaller sized probes may detect heterogeneous sensory threshold in healthy male subjects. Pain Med 2014;15:272-80.
  33. Heus PD, Oossanen GV, Dierendonck MCV, Back W. A Pressure algometer is a useful tool to objectively monitor the effect of diagnostic palpation by a physiotherapist in warmblood horses. J Equine Vet Sci 2010;30:310-21.
  34. Grint NJ, Whay HR, Beths T, Yvorchuk K, Murrell JC. Challenges of thermal nociceptive threshold testing in the donkey. Vet Anaesth Analg 2015;42:205-14.
  35. Dixon M, Taylor P, Slingsby L, Murrell J. Refinement of a thermal threshold probe to prevent burns. Lab Anim 2016;50:54-62.
  36. Jensen K, Andersen HØ, Olesen J, Lindblom U. Pressure-pain threshold in human temporal region. Evaluation of a new pressure algometer. Pain 1986;25:313-23.
  37. Briley JD, Williams MD, Freire M, Griffith EH, Lascelles BDX. Feasibility and repeatability of cold and mechanical quantitative sensory testing in normal dogs. Vet J 2014;199:245-50.
  38. Potter L, McCarthy C, Oldham J. Algometer reliability in measuring pain pressure threshold over normal spinal muscles to allow quantification of anti-nociceptive treatment effects. Int J Osteopath Med 2006;9:113-9.
  39. Varcoe-Cocks K, Sagar K, Jeffcott L, McGowan C. Pressure algometry to quantify muscle pain in racehorses with suspected sacroiliac dysfunction. Equine Vet J 2006;38:558-62.
  40. Antonaci F, Bovim G, Fasano ML, Bonamico L, Shen JM. Pain threshold in humans. A study with the pressure algometer. Funct Neurol 1992;7:283-8.

Citations

This article has been cited 5 times.
  1. Hartmann A, Welte-Jzyk C, Schmidtmann I, Geber C, Al-Nawas B, Daubländer M. Somatosensory and Gustatory Profiling in the Orofacial Region. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022 Dec 16;12(12).
    doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12123198pubmed: 36553205google scholar: lookup
  2. Gueguen L, Lerch N, Grandgeorge M, Hausberger M. Testing individual variations of horses' tactile reactivity: when, where, how?. Naturwissenschaften 2022 Aug 11;109(5):41.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-022-01811-ypubmed: 35951112google scholar: lookup
  3. Petrucci M, Spadavecchia C, Rieben R, Casoni D. Mechanical and thermal thresholds before and after application of a conditioning stimulus in healthy Göttingen Minipigs. PLoS One 2024;19(8):e0309604.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309604pubmed: 39208203google scholar: lookup
  4. Gisler J, Chiavaccini L, Blum S, Montavon S, Spadavecchia C. Pressure pain mapping of equine distal joints: feasibility and reliability. Front Pain Res (Lausanne) 2024;5:1342954.
    doi: 10.3389/fpain.2024.1342954pubmed: 38726353google scholar: lookup
  5. McAndrews A, Zarucco L, Hopster K, Stefanovski D, Foster D, Driessen B. Evaluation of Three Methods of Sensory Function Testing for the Assessment of Successful Maxillary Nerve Blockade in Horses. J Vet Dent 2025 Jan;42(1):48-54.
    doi: 10.1177/08987564231164769pubmed: 37013274google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.