The EU Directive 2010/63/EU changed the requirements regarding the use of laboratory animals and raised important issues related to assessing the severity of all procedures undertaken on laboratory animals. However, quantifiable parameters to assess severity are rare, and improved assessment strategies need to be developed. Hence, a Sheep Grimace Scale (SGS) was herein established by observing and interpreting sheep facial expressions as a consequence of pain and distress following unilateral tibia osteotomy. The animals were clinically investigated and scored five days before surgery and at 1, 3, 7, 10, 14 and 17 days afterwards. Additionally, cortisol levels in the saliva of the sheep were determined at the respective time points. For the SGS, video recording was performed, and pictures of the sheep were randomized and scored by blinded observers. Osteotomy in sheep resulted in an increased clinical severity score from days 1 to 17 post-surgery and elevated salivary cortisol levels one day post-surgery. An analysis of facial expressions revealed a significantly increased SGS on the day of surgery until day 3 post-surgery; this elevated level was sustained until day 17. Clinical severity and SGS scores correlated positively with a Pearson´s correlation coefficient of 0.47. Further investigations regarding the applicability of the SGS revealed a high inter-observer reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 and an accuracy of 68.2%. In conclusion, the SGS represents a valuable approach for severity assessment that may help support and refine a widely used welfare assessment for sheep during experimental procedures, thereby meeting legislation requirements and minimizing the occurrence of unrecognized distress in animal experimentation.

Modern veterinary medicine offers numerous options for treatment and clinicians must decide on the best one to use. Interventions causing short-term harm but ultimately benefitting the animal are often justified as being in the animal’s best interest. Highly invasive clinical veterinary procedures with high morbidity and low success rates may not be in the animal’s best interest. A working party was set up by the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia to discuss the ethics of clinical veterinary practice and improve the approach to ethically challenging clinical cases. Relevant literature was reviewed. The ‘best interest principle’ was translated into norms immanent to the clinic by means of the ‘open question argument’. Clinical interventions with potential to cause harm need ethical justification, and suggest a comparable structure of ethical reflection to that used in the context of in vivo research should be applied to the clinical setting. To structure the ethical debate, pertinent questions for ethical decision-making were identified. These were incorporated into a prototype ethical tool developed to facilitate clinical ethical decision-making. The ethical question ‘Where should the line on treatment be drawn’ should be replaced by ‘How should the line be drawn?’

SummaryThe first attempts to introduce computerized power spectrum analysis of the electroencephalogram (EEG) as an intraoperative anaesthesia monitoring device started approximately 30 years ago. Since that time, the effects of various anaesthetic agents, sedative and analgesic drugs on the EEG pattern have been addressed in numerous studies in human patients and different animal species. These studies revealed dose-dependent changes in the EEG power spectrum for many intravenous and volatile anaesthetics. Moreover, EEG responses evoked by surgical stimuli during relative light levels of surgical anaesthesia have been classified as 'arousal' and 'paradoxical arousal' reaction, previously referred to as 'desynchronization' and 'synchronization', respectively. Contrasting reports on the correlation between quantitative EEG (QEEG) variables derived from power spectrum analysis (i.e. spectral edge frequency, median frequency) and simultaneously recorded clinical signs such as movement and haemodynamic responses, however, limited the routine use of intraoperative EEG monitoring. In addition, the appearance of EEG burst suppression pattern and isoelectricity at clinically relevant concentrations/doses of newer general anaesthetics (i.e. isoflurane, sevoflurane, propofol) may have weakened the dose-related EEG changes previously reported. Despite these findings, the EEG power spectrum analysis may still provide valuable information during intraoperative monitoring in the individual subject. The information obtained from EEG power spectrum analysis may be further supplemented by newer EEG indices such as bispectral index and approximate entropy or other neurophysiological monitors including auditory evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials.

No abstract