4.5 Article

Early and late anti nociceptive effects of sucrose on neonatal inflammatory pain in rats: Comparison to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 37-42

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.03.014

关键词

Rat; Ibuprofen; CFA; Hyperalgesia; Allodynia

资金

  1. deanship of research at Jordan University of science and technology [2016/349]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of neonatal pain is not only ethical but is also essential. Barriers to pain management in infants include lack of safe and effective medications and fear of adverse effects of conventional pain medications. Sweet solutions given intraorally have been shown to reduce pain behaviors and associated symptoms. Sucrose and other sweet solutions are being increasingly used at the NICUs and immunization clinics. Sucrose for mild invasive procedures is effective and safe for those procedures that need to be repeated multiple times during the day. Only few studies examine the efficacy of sucrose for the management of inflammatory pain during infancy. In this study, Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA) was used to induce inflammation in 5-day-old rat pups; CFA also produces inflammation that lasts for more than a day, thus can also be a model for chronic pain. Sucrose or ibuprofen was given to subset of pups shortly after CFA intraplantar injections. Thermal as well as mechanical pain sensitivity was assessed on subsequent days as well as during adolescence and early adulthood. Sucrose and ibuprofen were both effective in preventing hyperalgesia and allodynia produced by CFA. Interestingly, sucrose was even more effective than ibuprofen, and the analgesic effects continued further to adolescence and adult life of the rats. Thus, and according to the results of this study, sucrose seems to be just as effective for inflammatory pain as Ibuprofen. In addition, sucrose protects against later-in-life hypersensitivity consequences to neonatal pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据