Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:42:44.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A preliminary study of behaviour-based indicators of pain in cats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

N Waran ,
L Best ,
V Williams ,
J Salinsky ,
A Dale  and
N Clarke
N Waran*
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
L Best
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
V Williams
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
J Salinsky
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
A Dale
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
N Clarke
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec New Zealand, Carrington Road, Auckland, New Zealand
*
* Correspondence: nwaran@unitec.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this preliminary study was to identify key behavioural indicators of pain in cats. The behaviour of cats before and after ovariohysterectomy was analysed using a detailed behavioural ethogram. A comparison of behaviours between cats given pre-operative analgesia only and cats given both pre- and post-operative analgesia indicated that both groups demonstrated changed behaviour following surgery, compared to a control group of cats which underwent anaesthesia but not surgery. However, some specific postures, such as ‘half-tucked-up’ and ‘crouching’, were identified that occurred with greater frequency in the cats receiving pre-operative analgesia only, as compared to those receiving additional post-operative analgesia. This indicates that there are some key behaviours that may be useful in determining pain in cats. Routine administration of pre- but not post-operative analgesia may be ineffective for adequately alleviating pain in cats.

Keywords

analgesiaanimal welfarecat behaviourovariohysterectomypain

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cambridge, AJ, Tobias, KM, Newberry, RC and Sarkar, DK 2000 Subjective and objective measurements of post-operative pain in cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 217: 685–689CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capner, C, Lascelles, B and Waterman-Pearson, A 1999 Current British veterinary attitudes to perioperative analgesia for dogs. Veterinary Record 145: 95–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conzemius, MG, Hill, CM, Sammarco, JL and Perkowski, SZ 1997 Correlation between subjective and objective measures used to determine severity of postoperative pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 210: 1619–1622Google ScholarPubMed
Firth, AM and Haldane, SL 1999 Development of a scale to evaluate postoperative pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 214: 651–659Google ScholarPubMed
Hansen, BD, Hardie, EM and Carroll, GS 1997 Physiological measurements after ovariohysterectomy in dogs: what's normal? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, EM, Hansen, BD and Carroll, GS 1997 Behaviour after ovariohysterectomy in the dog: what's normal? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, L, Reid, J, Scott, EM, Pawson, P and Nolan, A 2001 Development of a behaviour-based scale to measure acute pain in dogs. The Veterinary Record 148: 525–531CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holton, LL, Scott, EM, Nolan, AM, Reid, J, Welsh, E and Flaherty, D 1998 Comparison of three methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 61–66Google ScholarPubMed
IASP 1994 Task Force on Taxonomy. In: Merskey, H and Bogduk, N (eds) Classification of Chronic Pain (2nd Edition) pp 209–214. International Association for the Study of Pain: Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
Lascelles, D and Waterman, A 1997 Analgesia in cats. In Practice 19: 203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascelles, B, Cripps, P, Mirchandani, S and Waterman, A 1995 Carprofen as an analgesic for postoperative pain in cats: dose titration and assessment of efficacy in comparison to pethidine hydrochloride. Journal of Small Animal Practice 36: 535–541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molony, V and Kent, JE 1997 Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioral and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science 75: 266–272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molony, V, Kent, JE and McKendrick, IJ 2003 Validation of a method for assessment of acute pain in lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 215–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V, Kent, JE and Robertson, IS 1995 Assessment of acute and chronic pain after different methods of castration of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V, Kent, JE, Hosie, BD and Graham, MJ 1997 Reduction of pain suffered by lambs at castration. The Veterinary Journal 153: 205–213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, S and Taylor, P 2004 Pain management in cats — past, present and future. Part 2: Treatment of pain — clinical pharmacology. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 6: 321–333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughan, JV and Flecknell, PA 2000 Effects of surgery and analgesic administration on spontaneous behaviour in singly housed rats. Research in Veterinary Science 69: 283–288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughan, JV and Flecknell, PA 2001 Behavioural effects of laparotomy and analgesic effects of ketoprofen and carprofen in rats. Pain 90: 65–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, VM, Lascelles, BDX and Robson, MC 2005 Current attitudes to, and use of, peri-operative analgesia in dogs and cats by veterinarians in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 53: 193CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed