Changes in sensory and pain perception thresholds after linear polarized near-infrared light radiation in the trigeminal region

Analgesia for Sheep in Commercial Production: Where to Next?

Simple Summary

Increasing societal and customer pressure to provide animals with ‘a life worth living’ continues to apply pressure on industry to alleviate pain associated with husbandry practices, injury and illness. Although a number of analgesic solutions are now available for sheep, providing some amelioration of the acute pain responses, this review has highlighted a number of potential areas for further research.

Abstract

Increasing societal and customer pressure to provide animals with ‘a life worth living’ continues to apply pressure on livestock production industries to alleviate pain associated with husbandry practices, injury and illness. Over the past 15–20 years, there has been considerable research effort to understand and develop mitigation strategies for painful husbandry procedures in sheep, leading to the successful launch of analgesic approaches specific to sheep in a number of countries. However, even with multi-modal approaches to analgesia, using both local anaesthetic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), pain is not obliterated, and the challenge of pain mitigation and phasing out of painful husbandry practices remains. It is timely to review and reflect on progress to date in order to strategically focus on the most important challenges, and the avenues which offer the greatest potential to be incorporated into industry practice in a process of continuous improvement. A structured, systematic literature search was carried out, incorporating peer-reviewed scientific literature in the period 2000–2019. An enormous volume of research is underway, testament to the fact that we have not solved the pain and analgesia challenge for any species, including our own. This review has highlighted a number of potential areas for further research.

Effect of high-intensity pulse irradiation with linear polarized near-infrared rays on muscle tone in patients with cerebrovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial

[Purpose] This study evaluated effects of a high-intensity linear polarized near-infrared ray irradiation for mitigation of muscle hypertonia. [Subjects] The subjects were 20 patients with cerebrovascular disease. [Methods] Subjects were randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The intervention group received irradiation of the triceps surae. Passive range of motion and passive resistive joint torque of ankle dorsiflexion were measured before and after the intervention in knee extended and flexed positions. [Results] In the knee extended position, the mean changes in passive range of motion were 2.70° and -0.50° in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and the mean changes in passive resistive joint torque were -1.42 and -0.26 N·m in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In the knee flexed position, the mean changes in passive range of motion were 3.70° and 0.70° in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and the mean changes in passive resistive joint torque were -2.38 and -0.31 N·m in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In both knee positions, the mean changes in the two indices were greater in the intervention group than in the control group. [Conclusion] High-intensity linear polarized near-infrared ray irradiation increases passive range of motion and decreases passive resistive joint torque.

Effects of linear-polarized near-infrared light irradiation on chronic pain

In order to study the efficacy of linear-polarized near-infrared light irradiation (LPNIR) on relieving chronic pain in conjunction with nerve block (NB) or local block (LB), a 3-week prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted to evaluate the pre- and post-therapy pain intensity. Visual analogue scales (VASs) were measured in all patients before and 6 months after therapy visiting the pain clinic during the period of August 2007 to January 2008. A total of 52 patients with either shoulder periarthritis or myofascial pain syndrome or lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned into two groups by drawing lots. Patients in Group I were treated with NB or LB plus LPNIR; Group II patients, for their part, were treated with the same procedures as in Group I, but not using LPNIR. In both groups, the pain intensity (VAS score) decreased significantly immediately after therapy as compared to therapy. There was a significant difference between the test and control groups immediately after therapy (P < 0.05), while no effect 6 months later. No side effects were observed. It is concluded that LPNIR is an effective and safe modality to treat various chronic pains, which has synergic effects with NB or LB.