Investigation of the effect of pasture and stable management on large intestinal motility in the horse, measured using transcutaneous ultrasonography.

S Williams, C A Tucker, M J Green, S L Freeman
{"title":"Investigation of the effect of pasture and stable management on large intestinal motility in the horse, measured using transcutaneous ultrasonography.","authors":"S Williams,&nbsp;C A Tucker,&nbsp;M J Green,&nbsp;S L Freeman","doi":"10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00399.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Reason for performing study: </strong>Management regimes have been identified as risk factors for equine intestinal motility disorders. However, it is not known how management factors affect gastrointestinal motility.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Large intestinal motility was similar in horses on a stabled and a pastured management regime.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effect of 2 different management regimes on large intestinal motility assessed with ultrasonography.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A within-subjects crossover design was used to compare large intestinal motility between a stabled and a pastured regime in 16 working horses. Group A was managed under a standardised stabled regime throughout the study. Group B was maintained at pasture for the first monitoring phase and then transferred to the stabled regime for the second monitoring phase. Motility of the caecum, sternal flexure and aboral left ventral colon (contractions/min) was measured twice daily for 2 consecutive days using transcutaneous ultrasonography. Mean values for each management regime were pooled for analysis using multilevel statistical modelling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant variables identified by the model included: time of day, region of intestine, management regime, and combination of region of intestine and management regime. Motility assessed by ultrasound was significantly lower in stabled horses compared to pasture-kept horses. Intestinal motility for caecum was 1.7 ± 0.3 contractions/min (pastured = 2.0, stabled = 1.4), sternal flexure was 1.6 ± 0.2 contractions/min (mean (pastured = 1.7, stabled = 1.5), and left ventral colon was 0.8 ± 0.3 contractions/min (pastured = 1.0, stabled = 0.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The null hypothesis was disproven. Large intestinal motility assessed by ultrasound was significantly reduced in stabled horses compared to pastured horses. This effect was most marked in the aboral left ventral colon.</p><p><strong>Potential relevance: </strong>This study has demonstrated a possible mechanism for the increased risk of large intestinal impactions in stabled horses.</p>","PeriodicalId":11801,"journal":{"name":"Equine veterinary journal. Supplement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00399.x","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equine veterinary journal. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00399.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Reason for performing study: Management regimes have been identified as risk factors for equine intestinal motility disorders. However, it is not known how management factors affect gastrointestinal motility.

Hypothesis: Large intestinal motility was similar in horses on a stabled and a pastured management regime.

Objective: To investigate the effect of 2 different management regimes on large intestinal motility assessed with ultrasonography.

Methods: A within-subjects crossover design was used to compare large intestinal motility between a stabled and a pastured regime in 16 working horses. Group A was managed under a standardised stabled regime throughout the study. Group B was maintained at pasture for the first monitoring phase and then transferred to the stabled regime for the second monitoring phase. Motility of the caecum, sternal flexure and aboral left ventral colon (contractions/min) was measured twice daily for 2 consecutive days using transcutaneous ultrasonography. Mean values for each management regime were pooled for analysis using multilevel statistical modelling.

Results: Significant variables identified by the model included: time of day, region of intestine, management regime, and combination of region of intestine and management regime. Motility assessed by ultrasound was significantly lower in stabled horses compared to pasture-kept horses. Intestinal motility for caecum was 1.7 ± 0.3 contractions/min (pastured = 2.0, stabled = 1.4), sternal flexure was 1.6 ± 0.2 contractions/min (mean (pastured = 1.7, stabled = 1.5), and left ventral colon was 0.8 ± 0.3 contractions/min (pastured = 1.0, stabled = 0.7).

Conclusions: The null hypothesis was disproven. Large intestinal motility assessed by ultrasound was significantly reduced in stabled horses compared to pastured horses. This effect was most marked in the aboral left ventral colon.

Potential relevance: This study has demonstrated a possible mechanism for the increased risk of large intestinal impactions in stabled horses.

利用经皮超声检查研究牧场和马厩管理对马大肠运动的影响。
开展研究的原因:管理制度已被确定为马肠道运动障碍的危险因素。然而,目前尚不清楚管理因素如何影响胃肠运动。假设:在马厩和牧场管理制度下,马的大肠运动是相似的。目的:探讨两种不同治疗方案对超声检查大肠运动的影响。方法:采用受试者内交叉设计比较16匹工作马在马厩和放牧状态下的大肠蠕动。在整个研究过程中,A组在标准化的稳定制度下进行管理。B组在第一监测阶段保持放牧,然后转入稳定状态进行第二监测阶段。采用经皮超声连续2天,每日2次测量盲肠运动、胸骨屈曲和离体左腹结肠(收缩/分钟)。每个管理制度的平均值使用多层统计模型进行汇总分析。结果:模型识别的显著变量包括:一天中的时间、肠道区域、管理制度以及肠道区域和管理制度的组合。通过超声波评估,马厩马的运动能力明显低于牧场马。盲肠肠蠕动1.7±0.3次收缩/min(放牧= 2.0,稳定= 1.4),胸骨屈曲1.6±0.2次收缩/min(平均(放牧= 1.7,稳定= 1.5),左腹结肠0.8±0.3次收缩/min(放牧= 1.0,稳定= 0.7)。结论:零假设被推翻。与放牧的马相比,通过超声波评估的马厩马的大肠运动明显减少。这种效果在离体左腹结肠中最为明显。潜在相关性:这项研究已经证明了马厩马大肠嵌塞风险增加的可能机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信