Comparison of rectal and tympanic core body temperature measurement in adult Guyanese squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus sciureus)
ABSTRACT Measuring core body temperature in a manner that is safe for animals and veterinary personnel is an important part of a physical examination. For nonhuman primates, this can involve increased restraint, additional stress, as well as the use of anesthetics and their deleterious effects on body temperature measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare two non-invasive methods of infrared tympanic thermometry to standard rectal thermometry in adult squirrel monkeys.
Tympanic temperatures were collected from 37 squirrel monkeys and compared to rectal temperatures using a human and veterinary infrared tympanic thermometer.
Compared with rectal temperature measurements, the human tympanic thermometer readings were not significantly different, while the veterinary tympanic thermometer measurements were significantly higher (P<0.05). There were no differences between sexes.
The tympanic thermometer designed for use in humans can be used in adult squirrel monkeys as an alternative to rectal thermometry for assessing core body temperature.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Measurement of body temperature is a routine part of the clinical assessment of a patient. However, this procedure may be time-consuming and stressful to most animals because the standard site of temperature acquisition remains the rectal mucosa. Although an increasing number of clinicians have been using auricular temperature to estimate core body temperature, evidence is still lacking regarding agreement between these two methods in cats. In this investigation, we evaluated the agreement between temperatures measured in the rectum and ear in 29 healthy cats over a 2-week period. Temperatures were measured in the rectum (using digital and mercury-in-glass thermometers) and ear once a day for 14 consecutive days, producing 406 temperature readings for each thermometer. Mean temperature and confidence intervals were similar between methods, and Bland-Altman plots showed small biases and narrow limits of agreement acceptable for clinical purposes. The interobserver variability was also checked, which indicated a strong correlation between two near-simultaneous temperature readings. Results are consistent with auricular thermometry being a reliable alternative to rectal thermometry for assessing core body temperature in healthy cats.10/2012; 15(4). DOI:10.1177/1098612X12464873
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Obtaining an animal's body temperature is essential for the assessment of its clinical status. For many species, rectal thermometry is the technique used most often; however, this method in macaques typically requires sedation or considerable physical restraint. A noninvasive and inexpensive temporal artery (TA) thermometer was evaluated as an alternative method for collecting body temperature measurements from macaques used in neuroscience research. Rectal and arterial temperatures were obtained from 86 macaques (mean age, 10.2 y) that had received ketamine (10 mg/kg IM) or Telazol (5 mg/kg IM); the arterial measurements were taken from behind the right ear. In addition, arterial temperatures were measured behind both ears in a cohort of awake, chaired macaques with cephalic restraint pedestals only (n = 8) or with cephalic restraint pedestals and recording chambers (n = 14). Within-subject repeatability for TA thermometry and agreement between rectal and arterial temperature measurements were assessed by using the Bland-Altman method. Temperature measurements indicated that values from TA thermometry were lower than those from rectal thermometry by 1.57 °C with a 95% agreement limit of ± 1.27 °C. Results show satisfactory repeatability with TA thermometry and agreement between arterial and rectal temperatures, demonstrating that TA thermometry can be a valuable tool in conscious, chaired macaques with restrained heads.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 01/2013; 52(3):295-300. · 0.73 Impact Factor