Duration of action of mepivacaine and lidocaine in equine palmar digital perineural blocks in an experimental lameness model.

OBJECTIVE: To establish and compare the onset and duration of action of 2 local anesthetics based on objective lameness and skin sensitivity assessment.

STUDY DESIGN: Interventional crossover experimental trial with balanced randomization.

ANIMALS: Eight horses.

METHODS: Reversible forelimb lameness was induced in 8 horses. A palmar digital nerve block (PDNB) was applied with mepivacaine or lidocaine (both 2%). Quantitative lameness and skin sensitivity data were collected with an inertial sensor system and a force gauge, respectively. The times to lameness resolution/skin desensitization (T1), consistent lameness detection/partial return of skin sensitivity (T2), and complete return of lameness/skin sensitivity (T3) were determined and compared between treatments and assessment methods.

RESULTS: Mepivacaine blocks resolved lameness in 8/8 horses, compared to 3/8 horses with lidocaine blocks. Both agents led to skin desensitization in 8/8 horses. Skin desensitization occurred sooner than lameness resolution after mepivacaine (P = .047). Duration of action was longer with mepivacaine than lidocaine (mean T3_lameness mepivacaine 366 minutes, lidocaine 113 minutes (P = .038); T3_skin mepivacaine 195 minutes, lidocaine 63 minutes [P ≤ .001]). Skin sensitivity returned sooner than lameness after lidocaine block at T3 (P = .015).

CONCLUSION: The use of lidocaine in PDNBs for the purpose of lameness diagnosis should be reassessed, as it may not resolve lameness despite loss of skin sensation. Mepivacaine is superior, with a reliable onset and longer duration of action. Skin desensitization as an indicator for the onset of action or effectiveness of PDNBs for mepivacaine and lidocaine, or as a measure of the duration of action of lidocaine PDNBs should be interpreted with caution.