Real-time and video-recorded pain assessment in beef cattle: clinical application and reliability in young, adult bulls undergoing surgical castration.

Bovine pain assessment relies on validated behavioral scales related to normal and pain-related behaviors. This study investigated the reliability and applicability of real-time and video-recorded pain assessment, and their agreement, in young, adult bulls undergoing surgical castration. Ten Nelore and nine Angus bulls underwent general anesthesia and surgical castration. Three-minute real-time observations and simultaneous videos were recorded at - 48 h (M0), before sedation, under fasting (M1), after surgery, 3 h after sternal recumbency (M2), after rescue analgesia (M3) and at 24 h (M4). Animals received morphine (after M2), dipyrone (after M3), and flunixin meglumine after surgical castration (M4). Two trained evaluators assessed real-time (n = 95) and video-recorded time-points (n = 95) using the Unesp-Botucatu Cattle Pain Scale (UCAPS). Both assessment methods inferred 'very good' reliability (≥ 0.81) with minimal bias, however, video-recorded assessment (4.33 ± 2.84) demonstrated slightly higher scores compared to real-time (3.08 ± 2.84). The results from this study suggest that UCAPS can be used in real-time or video-recorded to assess pain and guide analgesic therapy in cattle.

Can detomidine replace medetomidine for pharmacological semen collection in domestic cats?

Among the different methods used for semen collection from domestic cats, the pharmacological collection by urethral catheterization becomes disruptive. Medetomidine is the elected α2-adrenoceptor agonist for that, but in several countries, it is not commercially available. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of detomidine compared to medetomidine in collecting semen by urethral catheterization in domestic cats. Urethral catheterization was performed on 13 mongrel cats using a disposable semi-rigid tomcat urinary catheter. Of the 19 semen collections performed with medetomidine induction, 94.7% were successful, while with detomidine induction, only 56.3% of 16 were successful. The values semen samples variables were as follows for volume - 10.56 ± 0.4 vs 8.88 ± 0.5 mL, motility - 171.67 ± 0.79 vs 49.77 ± 3.45%, vigor - 4.1 ± 0.03 vs 3.10 ± 0.1 and concentration - 3.24 ± 0.19 vs 2.15 ± 0.13 ×109 sperm/mL respectively for medetomidine and detomidine group. The failure in semen collections with detomidine was mainly due to azoospermic samples, poor urethral relaxation, insufficient volume, or contamination of urine. The sperm concentration was also lower in the detomidine group (P <0.05) when compared to medetomidine. However, when the volume of semen collected was compared, we found no statistical differences. Despite its low performance in collecting semen from cats, detomidine may be an alternative when medetomidine is not accessible.

Development and validation of the facial scale (FaceSed) to evaluate sedation in horses.

Although facial characteristics are used to estimate horse sedation, there are no studies measuring their reliability and validity. This randomised controlled, prospective, horizontal study aimed to validate a facial sedation scale for horses (FaceSed). Seven horses received detomidine infusion i.v. in low or high doses/rates alone (DL 2.5 µg/kg+6.25 µg/kg/h; DH 5 µg/kg+12.5 µg/kg/h) or combined with methadone (DLM and DHM, 0.2 mg/kg+0.05 mg/kg/h) for 120 min, or acepromazine boli i.v. in low (ACPL 0.02 mg/kg) or high doses (ACPH 0.09 mg/kg). Horses' faces were photographed at i) baseline, ii) peak, iii) intermediate, and iv) end of sedation. After randomisation of moments and treatments, photos were sent to four evaluators to assess the FaceSed items (ear position, orbital opening, relaxation of the lower and upper lip) twice, within a one-month interval. The intraclass correlation coefficient of intra- and interobserver reliability of FaceSed scores were good to very good (0.74-0.94) and moderate to very good (0.57-0.87), respectively. Criterion validity based on Spearman correlation between the FaceSed versus the numerical rating scale and head height above the ground were 0.92 and -0.75, respectively. All items and the FaceSed total score showed responsiveness (construct validity). According to the principal component analysis all FaceSed items had load factors >0.50 at the first dimension. The high internal consistency (Cronbach´s α = 0.83) indicated good intercorrelation among items. Item-total Spearman correlation was adequate (rho 0.3-0.73), indicating homogeneity of the scale. All items showed sensitivity (0.82-0.97) to detect sedation, however only orbital opening (0.79) and upper lip relaxation (0.82) were specific to detect absence of sedation. The limitations were that the facial expression was performed using photos, which do not represent the facial movement and the horses were docile, which may have reduced specificity. The FaceSed is a valid and reliable tool to assess tranquilisation and sedation in horses.

Development, Validation, and Reliability of a Sedation Scale in Horses (EquiSed).

The lack of standardization of sedation scales in horses limits the reproducibility between different studies. This prospective, randomized, blinded, horizontal and controlled trial aimed to validate a scale for sedation in horses (EquiSed). Seven horses were treated with intravenous detomidine in low/high doses alone (DL 2.5 µg/kg + 6.25 µg/kg/h; DH 5 µg/kg +12.5 µg/kg/h) or associated with methadone (DLM and DHM, 0.2 mg/kg + 0.05 mg/kg/h) and with low (ACPL 0.02 mg/kg) or high (ACPH 0.09 mg/kg) doses of acepromazine alone. Horses were filmed at (i) baseline (ii) peak, (iii) intermediate, and (iv) end of sedation immediately before auditory, visual and pressure stimuli were applied and postural instability evaluated for another study. Videos were randomized and blindly evaluated by four evaluators in two phases with 1-month interval. Intra- and interobserver reliability of the sum of EquiSed (Intraclass correlation coefficient) ranged between 0.84-0.94 and 0.45-0.88, respectively. The criterion validity was endorsed by the high Spearman correlation between the EquiSed and visual analog (0.77), numerical rating (0.76), and simple descriptive scales (0.70), and average correlation with head height above the ground (HHAG) (-0.52). The Friedman test confirmed the EquiSed responsiveness over time. The principal component analysis showed that all items of the scale had a load factor ≥ 0.50. The item-total Spearman correlation for all items ranged from 0.3 to 0.5, and the internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.73). The area under the curve of EquiSed HHAG as a predictive diagnostic measure was 0.88. The sensitivity of the EquiSed calculated according to the cut-off point (score 7 of the sum of the EquiSed) determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 96% and specificity was 83%. EquiSed has good intra- and interobserver reliabilities and is valid to evaluate tranquilization and sedation in horses.