SummaryBackgroundTibial perineural analgesia has often been reported to fail to achieve nerve desensitisation in horses. Ultrasound‐guided (US‐guided) techniques have recently been described to improve tibial perineural desensitisation.ObjectivesTo compare US‐guided and ‘blind’ tibial perineural analgesia techniques in lameness investigation.Study designRandomised clinical trial.MethodsHorses presenting for lameness investigation, which required tibial perineural analgesia, were randomly assigned either to a US‐guided or blind injection group. The efficacy of perineural analgesia was assessed by testing the loss of skin sensation at the medial and lateral heel bulbs. Skin sensation was assessed, prior to injection and then at four intervals post‐injection (10–15, 20–25, 30–35 and 40–45 min) using a hand‐held digital algometer with a 1 mm diameter pin; a value of 25 N was defined as indicative of skin desensitisation. The time taken to perform each injection technique and any adverse reactions were recorded. Summary statistics were performed to examine differences between groups. The frequency of skin desensitisation was compared between groups using a Fisher's exact test and the length of time taken to perform injections was compared using a Mann–Whitney U test.ResultsSixteen US‐guided and 11 blind injections were included in the study. All cases undergoing US‐guided injection lost skin sensation, whereas this occurred in only one case receiving the blind injection. The US‐guided group had a significantly higher probability of skin sensation loss (p < 0.001), although the injection technique took significantly longer to complete compared to the blind group (p < 0.001). No adverse reactions were noted with either perineural injection technique.Main limitationsLimited number of cases for each injection group.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that US‐guided tibial perineural injection is more likely to result in adequate and prompt tibial perineural analgesia compared to the blind injection technique, although it takes longer to complete.
Need a simple solution for managing your BibTeX entries? Explore CiteDrive!
- Web-based, modern reference management
- Collaborate and share with fellow researchers
- Integration with Overleaf
- Comprehensive BibTeX/BibLaTeX support
- Save articles and websites directly from your browser
- Search for new articles from a database of tens of millions of references
Try out CiteDrive More from our Archive
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13847 2023
Image analysis quantification of sperm acrosome associated 3 protein expression in domesticated and free‐roaming equine ovaries
Mikaela K. Lee, Victoria M. Strandberg, Brynley C. Cozzi, Ann M. Ramsey, Kendall A. Evanchak, Michelle A. Kutzler
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13861 2023
Perioperative pain management protocols of veterinarians in the United States for horses undergoing routine orchiectomy (castration)
Debra C. Sellon, Macarena G. Sanz, Jamie J. Kopper
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13859 2023
Static, dynamic and non‐weightbearing ultrasound evaluation of the digital flexor tendon sheath improves sensitivity and specificity of manica flexoria tears diagnosis in cobs and ponies
Marco Marcatili, Federica Cantatore, Maria Hibner‐Szaltys, Jonathan Withers
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13857 2023
Rostral mandibulectomy as a treatment for comminuted pars incisiva fractures and fibro‐osseous lesions: A retrospective study including six cases
Orr Haion, Amos Tatz, Ori Brenner, Roee Dahan, Gil Oreff, Gal Kelmer
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13855 2023
Ultrasound‐guided perineural injection of the tibial nerve in the horse versus a ‘blind’ technique
Nicholas A. Bellitto, Lance Voute, Richard Reardon, Jonathan M. Withers
-
DOI: 10.1111/eve.13856 2023
Congenital kyphoscoliosis associated with thoracic hemivertebrae in a 9‐month‐old Racking filly
Samaneh Ghasemi, Mohammad Ali Sadeghi Balajorshari, Ali Mirshahi, Mojtaba Kiakojoori