Cassu Renata N, Luna Stelio P L, Clark Rosana M O, Kronka Sérgio N
Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, FMVZ, Unesp, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2008 Jan;35(1):52-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2007.00347.x. Epub 2007 Aug 13.
To compare the analgesic effect of uni- and bi-lateral electroacupuncture (EA) in response to thermal and mechanical nociceptive stimuli and to investigate the cardiorespiratory, endocrine, and behavioral changes in dogs submitted to EA.
Prospective, randomized cross-over experimental study.
Eight adult, clinically healthy, cross-breed dogs, weighing 13 +/- 4 kg.
Dogs underwent electrostimulation at false acupoints (T-false); bilateral EA at acupoints, stomach 36, gall bladder 34 and spleen 6 (T-EA/bil); unilateral EA at the same points (T-EA/uni) or were untreated (T-control). All animals received acepromazine (0.05 mg kg(-1)) IV; and heart rate, pulse oximetry, indirect arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, Pe'CO(2), rectal temperature, and plasma cortisol concentration were measured before, during, and after EA. Analgesia was tested using thoracic and abdominal cutaneous thermal and mechanical stimuli, and an interdigital thermal stimulus. Behavior was classified as calm or restless. Analysis of variance for repeated measures followed by Tukey's test was used for analysis of the data.
There were no cardiorespiratory differences among the treatments. The cutaneous pain threshold was higher after EA, compared with false points. The latency period was shorter and analgesia was more intense in T-EA/bil than T-EA/uni, when both were compared with T-false and T-control. Six out of eight animals treated with EA were calm during treatment, and 5/8 and 4/8 of the T-false and T-control animals, respectively, were restless. Latency to interdigital thermal stimulation increased in T-EA/bil compared with the others. There was no difference in plasma cortisol concentrations among the treatments.
Bilateral EA produced a shorter latency period, a greater intensity, and longer duration of analgesia than unilateral stimulation, without stimulating a stress response.
Bilateral EA produces a better analgesic effect than unilateral EA.
比较单侧与双侧电针（EA）对热和机械性伤害性刺激的镇痛效果，并研究接受电针治疗的犬的心肺、内分泌和行为变化。
前瞻性、随机交叉实验研究。
8只成年、临床健康的杂种犬，体重13±4千克。
犬在假穴位接受电刺激（T-假）；在穴位胃36、胆34和脾6进行双侧电针（T-EA/双侧）；在相同穴位进行单侧电针（T-EA/单侧）或不进行治疗（T-对照）。所有动物静脉注射乙酰丙嗪（0.05毫克/千克）；在电针治疗前、治疗期间和治疗后测量心率、脉搏血氧饱和度、间接动脉血压、呼吸频率、呼气末二氧化碳分压、直肠温度和血浆皮质醇浓度。使用胸部和腹部皮肤热刺激和机械刺激以及指间热刺激测试镇痛效果。行为分为平静或不安。采用重复测量方差分析并随后进行Tukey检验对数据进行分析。
各治疗组之间心肺功能无差异。与假穴位相比，电针治疗后皮肤痛阈更高。当将T-EA/双侧和T-EA/单侧与T-假和T-对照进行比较时，T-EA/双侧的潜伏期更短，镇痛作用更强。接受电针治疗的8只动物中有6只在治疗期间平静，而T-假组和T-对照组分别有5/8和4/8的动物不安。与其他组相比，T-EA/双侧的指间热刺激潜伏期延长。各治疗组之间血浆皮质醇浓度无差异。
双侧电针比单侧刺激产生的潜伏期更短、镇痛强度更大、持续时间更长，且不会引发应激反应。
双侧电针比单侧电针产生更好的镇痛效果。
