Effects of firocoxib and tepoxalin on healing in a canine gastric mucosal injury model.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of dual cyclooxygenase (COX) and lipoxygenase inhibition on canine gastric mucosal healing. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effects of putative dual COX and 5-lipoxygenase inhibition with that of COX-2 selective inhibition on gastric mucosal lesion healing in dogs. ANIMALS: Six normal adult mixed-breed research dogs. METHODS: Gastric body and pyloric lesions were induced by endoscopic biopsy. Dogs were treated with tepoxalin, firocoxib, or placebo for 7 days in a randomized 3-way crossover study design. Healing was evaluated on days 2, 4, and 7 of treatment by endoscopic lesion scoring. Eicosanoid concentrations in plasma and at the lesion margins were determined on days 2, 4, and 7. Repeated measures analyses were performed. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided with P < .05. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using Tukey's test. RESULTS: Significant treatment differences were noted in the pyloric lesion area measurements. Overall, the firocoxib group had larger lesions than the placebo (P= .0469) or tepoxalin (P= .0089) groups. Despite larger pyloric lesions in the firocoxib group, mucosal prostaglandin production did not differ significantly from placebo. In contrast, the tepoxalin group had significantly lower pyloric mucosal prostaglandin production compared with the firocoxib (P < .0001) or the placebo (P < .0001) groups but pyloric lesions were not significantly larger than those of the placebo group (P= .7829). CONCLUSION: COX-2 inhibition by firocoxib slowed wound healing by a mechanism independent of prostaglandin synthesis. Suppression of mucosal prostaglandin production by tepoxalin did not alter mucosal lesion healing compared with placebo.

Measurement of velocity with a kinematic system versus a photocell system in the collection of canine ground reaction forces.

Velocities obtained from a five photocell system were compared to velocities of nine anatomical points on a handler and canine subject as reported by a kinematic system over the same distance. There was not a statistically significant difference between the velocities of the markers on the dogs' occipital protuberance and interscapular region compared with the velocity as reported by the photocell system. The average velocities of the three markers on the forelimb of the dogs and three markers on the handler's leg and one on the sacrum had statistically different values than the photocell system. Given these results, photocell systems with the same configuration in this study can be trusted to report accurate trunk velocities of canine subjects during the collection of ground reaction forces.

Measurement differences between three versus five photocells during collection of ground reaction forces in dogs.

The differences between velocities and accelerations obtained from three and five photocells were examined when obtaining ground reaction force (GRF) data in dogs. Ground reaction force data was collected 259 times from 16 different dogs in two experimental phases. The first phase compared velocities and accelerations reported by the two systems based on trials accepted by the three photocell system. The second phase accepted trials based on data from five photocells. Three photocell data were calculated mathematically in the second phase in order to compare the values of both systems. The velocity and acceleration values obtained from each system were significantly different (at the hundredth of a meter per second). Differences in measured values did not result in acceptance of data by the three photocell system that would not have been acceptable with the five photocell system (false positives), but did result in rejection of acceptable data by the three photocell system (11% false negative rate). Given the small differences between the two systems, GRF data collected should not be significantly different, though the three photocell system is less efficient in gathering data due to the number of trials rejected as false negatives.