Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jun;10(2):157-60.
doi: 10.4142/jvs.2009.10.2.157.

Effects of mosapride on motility of the small intestine and caecum in normal horses after jejunocaecostomy

Kouichi Okamura  1 , Naoki Sasaki, Takuya Kikuchi, Aya Murata, Inhyung Lee, Haruo Yamada, Hisashi Inokuma
Affiliations

Effects of mosapride on motility of the small intestine and caecum in normal horses after jejunocaecostomy

Kouichi Okamura et al. J Vet Sci. 2009 Jun.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the prokinetic effects of mosapride with non-invasive assessment of myoelectrical activity in the small intestine and caecum of healthy horses after jejunocaecostomy. Six horses underwent celiotomy and jejunocaecostomy, and were treated with mosapride (treated group) at 1.5 mg/kg per osos once daily for 5 days after surgery. The other six horses did not receive treatment and were used as controls (non-treated group). The electrointestinography (EIG) maximum amplitude was used to measure intestinal motility. Motility significantly decreased following surgery. In the treated group, the EIG maximum amplitude of the small intestine was significantly higher than in the controls from day 6 approximately 31 after treatment. These findings clearly indicate that mosapride could overcome the decline of intestinal motility after jejunocaecostomy in normal horses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Electrointestinography (EIG) electrode position. A: Small intestine, B: Ceacum, ●: EIG mini-amplifier, ○: EIG in different electrodes.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Electrointestinography maximum amplitude of the small intestine (A) and caecum (B). Preoperative value was taken as 100% and each value was shown as mean ± SD, [○: treated group (N = 6), △: control (N = 6)]. a,bSignificant differences (p < 0.05) compared with each preoperative value of the treated group (A) and the control group (B). *,†Significant differences (p < 0.05, p < 0.01) compared between the treated group and the control group on the same day.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bauer AJ, Boeckxstaens GE. Mechanisms of postoperative ileus. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2004;16(Suppl 2):54–60. - PubMed
    1. Cohen ND, Lester GD, Sanchez LC, Merritt AM, Roussel AJ., Jr Evaluation of risk factors associated with development of postoperative ileus in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004;225:1070–1078. - PubMed
    1. Dart AJ, Hodgson DR. Role of prokinetic drugs for treatment of postoperative ileus in the horse. Aust Vet J. 1998;76:25–31. - PubMed
    1. Donawick WJ, Christie BA, Stewart JV. Resection of diseased ileum in the horse. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1971;159:1146–1149. - PubMed
    1. Embertson RM, Colahan PT, Brown MP, Peyton LC, Schneider RK, Granstedt ME. Ileal impaction in the horse. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1985;186:570–572. - PubMed