Analgesic Comparison of Flunixin Meglumine or Meloxicam for Soft-Tissue Surgery in Sheep: A Pilot Study

Simple Summary Pain management is lacking in U.S. commercial sheep production systems. This is, in part, due to the limited amount of scientific data evaluating sheep pain responses after analgesia treatment. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as meloxicam (MEL) and flunixin meglumine (FLU), are the most common drug class provided to livestock species to manage pain. Pain assessment tools, such as facial grimace scales, which use changes in facial expression to monitor pain, are also needed to improve pain management and sheep welfare. In this study, sheep undergoing a laparotomy (a surgical procedure where an incision is made into the abdominal cavity) were treated with either MEL or FLU to manage pain. A third group of ewes did not undergo surgery and served as study controls (CON). Behavior and physiologic outcome measures were collected pre-procedure and up to 48 h post-procedure. The results suggest that MEL and FLU were equally effective at providing post-operative analgesia; however, even with NSAID administration, acute pain and inflammation were still present in surgical sheep compared to non-surgical controls. The facial grimace scale results were not consistent with the other outcome measures taken in this study and it should not be used as a stand-alone pain assessment tool. The amount of scientific data evaluating sheep pain responses after analgesia treatment is limited. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of flunixin meglumine (FLU) and meloxicam (MEL) at relieving post-surgical pain in sheep and to evaluate the utility of the Sheep Grimace Scale (SGS). Thirty ewes were assigned to one of three treatment groups: oral MEL or intravenous FLU to manage pain associated with a laparotomy procedure, or a non-surgical control (CON) group. Behavior and physiologic outcome measures were collected pre-procedure and up to 48 h post-procedure. There were no significant differences in behavior, gait, degree of inflammation or pain around the surgical site when MEL and FLU sheep were compared, suggesting that both drugs provided similar levels of analgesia. Significant differences in behavior, gait, abdominal inflammation and pain were found when surgical sheep were compared to non-surgical controls. More work is needed to characterize the amount of pain relief provided by MEL and FLU. The SGS had moderate reliability between scorers; however, the results were inconsistent with the other study outcome measures. The SGS may have some utility as a pain assessment tool but should be used in conjunction with other pain measures.