Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T12:03:57.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of score parameters for severity assessment of surgery and liver cirrhosis in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2023

Johanne C Krueger
Affiliation:
Institute for Laboratory Animal Science and Experimental Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen 52074, Germany Animal Welfare Unit, University of Bonn, Bonn 53113, Germany
Moriz A Habigt
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany
Marius J Helmedag
Affiliation:
Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen 52074, Germany
Moritz Uhlig
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany
Michaela Moss
Affiliation:
Institute for Laboratory Animal Science and Experimental Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen 52074, Germany
André Bleich
Affiliation:
Institute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany
René H Tolba
Affiliation:
Institute for Laboratory Animal Science and Experimental Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen 52074, Germany
Rolf Rossaint
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany
Marc Hein
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany
Mare Mechelinck*
Affiliation:
Institute for Laboratory Animal Science and Experimental Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen 52074, Germany Department of Anaesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Pauwelsstraße 30, Aachen 52074, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Mare Mechelinck, Email: mmechelinck@ukaachen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Severity assessment in animals is an ongoing field of research. In particular, the question of objectifiable and meaningful parameters of score-sheets, as well as their best combination, arise. This retrospective analysis investigates the suitability of a score-sheet for assessing severity and seeks to optimise it for predicting survival in 89 male Sprague Dawley rats (Rattus norvegicus), during an experiment evaluating the influence of liver cirrhosis by bile duct ligation (BDL) on vascular healing. The following five parameters were compared for their predictive power: (i) overall score; (ii) relative weight loss; (iii) general condition score; (iv) spontaneous behaviour score; and (v) the observer’s assessment whether pain might be present. Suitable cut-off values of these individual parameters and the combination of multiple parameters were investigated. A total of ten rats (11.2%; 10/89) died or had to be sacrificed at an early stage due to pre-defined humane endpoints. Neither the overall score nor any individual parameter yielded satisfactory results for predicting survival. Using retrospectively calculated cut-off values and combining the overall score with the observer’s assessment of whether the animal required analgesia (dipyrone) for pain relief resulted in an improved prediction of survival on the second post-operative day. This study demonstrates that combining score parameters was more suitable than using single ones and that experienced human judgement of animals can be useful in addition to objective parameters in the assessment of severity. By optimising the score-sheet and better understanding the burden of the model on rats, this study contributes to animal welfare.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow chart of the experimental design showing the number (n) of rats for the two groups (sham and BDL) within the 1st and 2nd surgery, and the experimental duration after which pre-defined euthanasia was performed. In addition, causes and number of deaths or early euthanasia are presented shaded in grey

Figure 1

Table 1. Score-sheet.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic decision table for euthanasia by combining two different parameters on post-operative day 2 according to the ‘believe the negative’ rule: euthanasia is only advised if the cut-off value is exceeded for all combined parameters.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier curves of post-operative survival for the two groups (sham and bile duct ligation [BDL]) for (a) after the first surgery and (b) after the second surgery. The three animals that died due to intraoperative complications during the 2nd surgery (two sudden respiratory arrests and one air embolism) were excluded. P-values were calculated using Log-Rank-test, with group as covariate

Figure 4

Figure 4. The time course of absolute bodyweight (BW) changes over the entire study period is shown for the sham (green) and bile duct ligation (BDL) groups (red). The three animals that died due to intraoperative complications during the 2nd surgery were excluded. Values are presented as means (± SD). Overall P-values were derived from generalised estimated equations.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Time course of changes in the overall scores for the bile duct ligation (BDL, red) and sham groups (green). The three animals that died due to intraoperative complications during the 2nd surgery were excluded. Values are presented as means (± SD). Overall P-values were derived from generalised estimated equations. Mild severity is depicted by the grey-shaded area.

Figure 6

Table 2. Number of animals that received additional dipyrone injections during the first seven days (a) after the 1st surgery (days 1–7) and (b) after the 2nd surgery (days 29–35). Dipyrone injections were given according to the observers’ assessment of analgesic requirements (DARAO). The numbers are shown separately for the bile duct ligation (BDL) and sham group

Figure 7

Table 3. The following values, measured on the second post-operative day after the first (BDL or sham) or second surgery (balloon dilatation of the carotid artery), are given for both study groups (BDL or sham): absolute bodyweight, daily analgesic requirement as assessed by the observer and score points for bodyweight, general condition, spontaneous behaviour and overall score. The three animals that died due to intraoperative complications during the 2nd surgery were excluded

Figure 8

Figure 6. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the overall score, separate score elements (relative weight loss, general condition score and spontaneous behaviour score), and the daily analgesic requirement as assessed by the observer (DARAO) on post-operative day 2. For each of the parameters on post-operative day 2, the table shows the area under the curve (AUC), the P-value, the degrees of freedom, the optimal cut-off point, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

Figure 9

Figure 7. Representative cases of post-operative complications showing (a) Horner’s syndrome and (b) abdominal peritoneal rupture with herniation.

Figure 10

Table 4. Efficiency measures and predictive values of survival (positive [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]) using a combination of two to three parameters are presented. Parameters included were overall score, relative weight loss, general condition score, spontaneous behaviour score, and daily analgesic requirements as assessed by the observer, each on the second post-operative day

Supplementary material: PDF

Krueger et al. supplementary material

Krueger et al. supplementary material

Download Krueger et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.3 MB