Abstract
PICO question
 In healthy lambs, does the administration of local anaesthetic reduce the pain response after castration and tail docking compared to the administration of meloxicam?
 
 Clinical bottom line
 Category of research question
 Treatment
 The number and type of study designs reviewed
 Three prospective randomised clinical trials (RCT) and one clinical trial without stated randomisation were critically reviewed
 Strength of evidence
 Moderate to strong evidence in terms of their experimental design due to having three RTCs which are all relatively recent research. However, their implementation is moderate to weak as they fail to prove the hypothesis
 Outcomes reported
 In all four studies there was improvement in the pain related behaviours post administration of anaesthesia or analgesia. There is conflicting evidence on meloxicam’s efficacy, but this could be a result of time spent observing outcomes, which relates to the drugs onset of action and time of peak concentration. Lidocaine has consistently shown a reduction in acute abnormal behaviours irrespective of equipment used
 Conclusion
 Based on the studies appraised in this Knowledge Summary there is not enough evidence to determine whether local anaesthesia is more effective than meloxicam at reducing the pain exhibited by lambs undergoing castration or tail docking. It has been shown that the use of local anaesthesia in the form of injectable lidocaine will reduce acute pain displayed during marking but there remains conflicting evidence for meloxicam with likely benefits occurring after several hours
 
 How to apply this evidence in practice
 The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
 Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
 
Highlights
Group 1: C+D without analgesia Group 2: sham group Group 3: C+D with local anaesthesia (LA) Group 4: C+D with meloxicam Group 5: C+D with LA and meloxicam administered separately Group 6: C+D with LA and meloxicam administered together Experimental details: Day 1: the ewes and lambs were brought down from a hill paddock (1.5 km) and held in a paddock adjacent to the yards. Days 2 + 3: the group was moved to the yards
Each lamb was marked on its head and rump according to group and left in assigned pens for a minimum of 30 minutes
Lamb caught and held by researcher, analgesia given by veterinary surgeon and procedure performed by farm staff
Summary
Population: New Zealand Merino, entire, singleton lambs, weighing 15.4 ± 0.23 kg, aged [4,5,6] weeks old Sample size: 90 healthy male lambs. On each of the 3 days: 30 lambs were weighed and randomly assigned to one of the six treatment groups. Lamb caught and held by researcher, analgesia given by veterinary surgeon and procedure performed by farm staff. Lambs were in the pen for a total of 6 hours on their day of testing, no feed or water given. Main findings: (relevant to PICO question): Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 In period B, the lambs showed a reduction in time spent standing/walking normally compared to pretreatment. Spent more time walking/standing abnormally than before treatment. Group 3 Reduced HL stretching, tail lifting and twisted lying in period B. Little effect on time spent in abnormal standing/walking or restlessness. Twisted lying, hindlimb (HL) stretching, and tail lifting reduced. Twisted lying, hindlimb (HL) stretching, and tail lifting reduced. Increased head/neck stretches
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
