Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35454274›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Evaluation of Two Injection Techniques in Combination with the Local Anesthetics Lidocaine and Mepivacaine for Piglets Undergoing Surgical Castration.

Julia Werner, Anna M Saller, Judith Reiser, Steffanie Senf, Pauline Deffner, Nora Abendschön, Johannes Fischer, Andrea Grott, Regina Miller, Yury Zablotski and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia WernerCenter of Preclinical Research, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4374-5374
Anna M SallerCenter of Preclinical Research, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Judith ReiserCenter of Preclinical Research, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Steffanie SenfClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4463-078X
Pauline DeffnerClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Nora AbendschönClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Johannes FischerCenter of Preclinical Research, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Andrea GrottChair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Husbandry, LMU Munich, 80539 Munich, Germany.
Regina MillerChair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Husbandry, LMU Munich, 80539 Munich, Germany.
Yury ZablotskiClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6928-4089
Katja SteigerInstitute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7269-5433
Shana BergmannChair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Husbandry, LMU Munich, 80539 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9888-653X
Michael H ErhardChair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Husbandry, LMU Munich, 80539 Munich, Germany.
Mathias RitzmannClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Susanne ZölsClinic for Swine, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Christine BaumgartnerCenter of Preclinical Research, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture 2817HS013Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture 2817HS016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study evaluated the effects of two injection techniques in combination with lidocaine or mepivacaine for piglets undergoing castration. To improve ease of use, a cannula with side holes (one-step fenestrated (F)) was invented to simultaneously deliver a local anesthetic into the testis and scrotum and was compared to a two-step injection technique. The distribution of a lidocaine/contrast agent mixture using the two methods was examined using computed tomography. Piglets were randomly divided into treatment groups: handling, castration without pain relief and castration after lidocaine or mepivacaine injection using the one-step F or two-step method. Acute physiological responses to noxious stimuli were evaluated by measuring the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and nocifensive movements. Fos protein expression in the spinal dorsal cord was semi-quantitatively analyzed. Both injection techniques achieved similar distribution patterns. The one-step F method was faster and easier. Injection was not associated with significant changes in MAP or HR, but Mepi1 and NaCl elicited significantly increased nocifensive movements. Both techniques significantly reduced MAP and nocifensive movements when the spermatic cords were cut, regardless of the local anesthetic type. Compared to NaCl, only the lidocaine treatments significantly reduced HR during skin incision. Lido2 significantly reduced Fos protein expression.

Indexed as

blood pressurecastrationdefensive movementsdistributionfos proteinheart rateinjectionlocal anesthesiapainpiglet

Identifiers

PMID35454274
PMCPMC9029161
OpenAlexW4224044718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.