Comparative clinical and thermographic responses to dexamethasone and saline solution mesotherapy in horses with spinal disorders.

BACKGROUND

Back pain and spinal dysfunction in horses are multifactorial conditions frequently associated with musculoskeletal alterations that may impair mobility, performance, and welfare. Mesotherapy has emerged as a minimally invasive adjunctive approach for managing musculoskeletal disorders; however, comparative clinical responses to different intradermal protocols in equine spinal conditions remain insufficiently investigated. The present study aims to compare the clinical and thermographic responses of two mesotherapy protocols in horses diagnosed with cervical or thoracolumbar spinal disorders.

METHODS

Forty horses with ultrasonographically confirmed spinal alterations were stratified by anatomical region (cervical or thoracolumbar) and randomly allocated into four subgroups (n = 10/group) to receive intradermal mesotherapy with either saline solution or dexamethasone sulfate (0.05 mg/kg). Clinical assessments of joint mobility and muscle hypotrophy, along with thermographic evaluations, were performed at baseline and at 48 h, 15, 30, and 60 days after treatment. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models with horses included as random effects for repeated measures, followed by Dunnett's post-hoc test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Temporal improvements were observed in joint mobility and thermographic with a progressive improvement in thoracolumbar extension mobility observed from 48 h (p < 0.0001) 15 days (p = 0.0003), 30 days (p = 0.0006), and 60 days (p = 0.0027), and significant improvements in thoracolumbar thermographic patterns at 48 h (p = 0.0219) and 15 days (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were detected between dexamethasone and saline-based mesotherapy protocols for most evaluated outcomes under the experimental conditions tested. Thermographic assessment appeared comparatively more responsive in detecting temporal pattern changes under the semiquantitative study conditions.

CONCLUSION

Under the present experimental conditions, both mesotherapy protocols were associated with comparable clinical and thermographic responses over time. However, given the absence of untreated or sham-treated control groups, these findings should be interpreted as comparative responses between active protocols rather than definitive evidence of therapeutic efficacy or mechanistic action. Further controlled studies are warranted to clarify therapeutic effects and procedural contributions.