Evaluation of contact heat thermal threshold testing for standardized assessment of cutaneous nociception in horses - comparison of different locations and environmental conditions

Table 2 Occurrence of end point detection during thermal stimulation

Place	Temperature	Success rate [%]	Nostril	Withers	Coronary band
			(n = 30)	(n = 30)	(n = 30)
Box	Warm ambient temperatures	Failure	6.66^a	3.34^a	40.0^b
	Warm ambient temperatures	Success	93.4^a	96.6^a	60.0^b
	Cold ambient temperatures	Failure	50.0^a	43.4^a	33.4^a
	Cold ambient temperatures	Success	50.0^a	56.6^a	66.6^a
Stocks	Warm ambient temperatures	Failure	13.4^a	26.6^abA	50.0^bB
	Warm ambient temperatures	Success	86.6^a	73.4^abA	50.0^bB
	Cold ambient temperatures	Failure	70.0^a	56.6^ab	43.4^b
	Cold ambient temperatures	Success	30.0^a	43.4^ab	56.6^b

Success rate (%) of end-point detection in response to thermal stimulation in 5 horses housed in a box stall or standing in stocks. Thermal stimulus was given to three different body parts (nostril, withers, coronary band) and during two different ambient temperatures (< 20°C or < 10°C). The overall number of stimulations was n = 30.
‘success’ – clear, visible reaction to the thermal stimulus before reaching cut out (threshold < cut-out temperature (56°C)). ‘failure’ - no visible reaction to the thermal stimulus and cut-out (56°C) was reached.
Comparison between locations: nostril/withers, nostril/coronary band, withers/coronary band.
^{a, b, c} = values with unequal superscript numbers were significantly different (p < 0.05).
^{A, B, C} = values with different superscript numbers had a statistical trend (p < 0.1).

ISSN: 1746-6148