Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Pain management in pigs undergoing experimental surgery; a literature review (2012-4).

Abstract

Failure to provide effective analgesia to animals in noxious studies contravenes the obligation to refine animal experimentation and, by increasing 'noise' in physiological data sets, may decrease the scientific validity of results. Pig models of surgical conditions are becoming increasingly important and used for translational work. This review aimed to determine the extent to which the recent biomedical literature describes pain assessment and alleviation in pigs recovering from experimental surgery. Three databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar) were searched to find relevant studies published from January 2012 to March 2014. Information on pain assessment and peri- and postoperative analgesia was extracted. The review identified 233 papers meeting selection criteria. Most articles (193/233, 83%) described use of drugs with analgesic properties, but only 87/233 (37%) described postoperative analgesia. No article provided justification for the analgesic chosen, despite the lack of guidelines for analgesia in porcine surgical models and the lack of formal studies on this subject. Postoperative pain assessment was reported in only 23/233 (10%) articles. It was found that the reporting of postoperative pain management in the studies was remarkably low, reflecting either under-reporting or under-use. Analgesic description, when given, was frequently too limited to enable reproducibility. Development of a pain-scoring system in pigs, together with the mandatory description of pain management in submitted articles, would contribute to improved laboratory pig welfare.

Links

  • FREE Publisher Full Text
  • Authors+Show Affiliations

    ,

    The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK.

    ,

    The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK Clinical Pharmacology, Cardiovascular Sciences, Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.

    The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK e.clutton@ed.ac.uk.

    Source

    British journal of anaesthesia 116:1 2016 Jan pg 37-45

    MeSH

    Analgesia
    Analgesics
    Animal Welfare
    Animals
    Pain Management
    Pain, Postoperative
    Surgical Procedures, Operative
    Swine

    Pub Type(s)

    Journal Article
    Review

    Language

    eng

    PubMed ID

    26433866

    Citation

    Bradbury, A G., et al. "Pain Management in Pigs Undergoing Experimental Surgery; a Literature Review (2012-4)." British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 116, no. 1, 2016, pp. 37-45.
    Bradbury AG, Eddleston M, Clutton RE. Pain management in pigs undergoing experimental surgery; a literature review (2012-4). Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(1):37-45.
    Bradbury, A. G., Eddleston, M., & Clutton, R. E. (2016). Pain management in pigs undergoing experimental surgery; a literature review (2012-4). British Journal of Anaesthesia, 116(1), pp. 37-45. doi:10.1093/bja/aev301.
    Bradbury AG, Eddleston M, Clutton RE. Pain Management in Pigs Undergoing Experimental Surgery; a Literature Review (2012-4). Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(1):37-45. PubMed PMID: 26433866.
    * Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
    TY - JOUR T1 - Pain management in pigs undergoing experimental surgery; a literature review (2012-4). AU - Bradbury,A G, AU - Eddleston,M, AU - Clutton,R E, Y1 - 2015/10/03/ PY - 2015/10/5/entrez PY - 2015/10/5/pubmed PY - 2016/4/22/medline KW - analgesia, postoperative KW - pain, postoperative KW - swine SP - 37 EP - 45 JF - British journal of anaesthesia JO - Br J Anaesth VL - 116 IS - 1 N2 - Failure to provide effective analgesia to animals in noxious studies contravenes the obligation to refine animal experimentation and, by increasing 'noise' in physiological data sets, may decrease the scientific validity of results. Pig models of surgical conditions are becoming increasingly important and used for translational work. This review aimed to determine the extent to which the recent biomedical literature describes pain assessment and alleviation in pigs recovering from experimental surgery. Three databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar) were searched to find relevant studies published from January 2012 to March 2014. Information on pain assessment and peri- and postoperative analgesia was extracted. The review identified 233 papers meeting selection criteria. Most articles (193/233, 83%) described use of drugs with analgesic properties, but only 87/233 (37%) described postoperative analgesia. No article provided justification for the analgesic chosen, despite the lack of guidelines for analgesia in porcine surgical models and the lack of formal studies on this subject. Postoperative pain assessment was reported in only 23/233 (10%) articles. It was found that the reporting of postoperative pain management in the studies was remarkably low, reflecting either under-reporting or under-use. Analgesic description, when given, was frequently too limited to enable reproducibility. Development of a pain-scoring system in pigs, together with the mandatory description of pain management in submitted articles, would contribute to improved laboratory pig welfare. SN - 1471-6771 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26433866/Pain_management_in_pigs_undergoing_experimental_surgery L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007-0912(17)30521-4 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -