It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Most research laboratories abide by guidelines and mandates set by their research institution regarding the administration of analgesics to control pain during the postoperative period. Unfortunately, measuring pain originating from the head is difficult, making adequate decisions regarding pain control following stereotaxic surgery problematic. In addition, most postsurgical analgesia protocols require multiple injections over several days, which may cause stress and distress during a critical recovery period. Here we sought to (1) assess the degree of postoperative pain following craniotomy in mice, (2) compare the efficacy of three common rodent analgesics (carprofen, meloxicam and buprenorphine) for reducing this pain and (3) determine whether the route of administration (injected or self-administered through the drinking supply) influenced pain relief post-craniotomy. Using the mouse grimace scale (MGS), we found that injectable analgesics were significantly more effective at relieving post-craniotomy pain, however, both routes of administration decreased pain scores in the first 24 h postsurgery. Specifically, buprenorphine administered independently of administration route was the most effective at reducing MGS scores, however, female mice showed greater sensitivity to carprofen when administered through the water supply. Although it is necessary to provide laboratory animals with analgesics after an invasive procedure, there remains a gap in the literature regarding the degree of craniotomy-related pain in rodents and the efficacy of alternative routes of administration. Our study highlights the limitations of administering drugs through the drinking supply, even at doses that are considered to be higher than those currently recommended by most research institutions for treating pain of mild to moderate severity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Toronto Mississauga, Dept. of Psychology, Mississauga, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)
2 University of Toronto Mississauga, Cell and Systems Biology, Mississauga, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)
3 University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Toronto, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)
4 University of Toronto, Division of Comparative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)
5 University of Toronto, Research Oversight and Compliance Office, Toronto, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)
6 University of Toronto Mississauga, Dept. of Psychology, Mississauga, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938); University of Toronto Mississauga, Cell and Systems Biology, Mississauga, Canada (GRID:grid.17063.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 2938)