When the L6-S1 dermatomes were mechanically stimulated, the median MT50 of the control, WAS and MDM groups were 60 (37,60) g, 5.5 (0.53, 8.5) g and 7.7 (1.9, 29) g respectively. The MT50 of the WAS group, but not of the MDM group (p=0.1372), was statistically different from the control (p=0.0082). Upon thermal stimulation in the L6-S1 dermatomes, the media LT of the control, WAS and MDM groups were 16 (15, 17) seconds, 12 (11, 16) seconds and 7.9 (5.3, 16) seconds, respectively. The LT of the MDM group, but not of the WAS group (p=0.2202), was statistically different from the LT of the control group (p=0.0344).
When mechanical stimulation of the L3-L5 dermatomes was performed, the mean MT50 of the control, WAS and MDM groups were 19 +/- 8.0 g, 14 +/- 9.9 g and 21 +/- 12 g, respectively. Neither group MT50 differed from the control group (p=0.6942 and p=0.7579, respectively). The thermal stimulation of L3-L5 dermatomes revealed that the control, WAS and MDM groups had a median LT of 18 (14,18) seconds, 17 (16,18) seconds and 9.8 (15,16) seconds respectively. Neither group's median LT value differed from the LT of the control group (p > 0.9999 and p = 0.0831, respectively).
Individual analysis of animals from the WAS group revealed that, of the 6 animals tested, two (33%) showed pelvic mechanical hypersensitivity, one (16.5%) showed pelvic thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity, two (33%) presented pelvic thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity and extra pelvic mechanical hypersensitivity, and one (16.5%) showed pelvic thermal hypersensitivity and extra pelvic mechanical hyposensitivity.
Individual analysis of animals from the MDM group revealed that of the 6 animals tested, two (33%) had pelvic thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity, one (16.75%) had pelvic thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity and extra pelvic mechanical hypersensitivity, one (16.75%) showed pelvic mechanical hypersensitivity and extra pelvic thermal hypersensitivity, one (16.75%) had extra pelvic thermal hypersensitivity, and one (16.75%) had pelvic thermal hypersensitivity and extra pelvic mechanical hyposensitivity.
When in the NOR arena, the novel object RI of the control, WAS and MDM groups were 57 +/- 16 %, 41 +/- 15 % and 56 +/- 9.3 %, respectively. The RI of the WAS and MDM groups did not differ from the control group (p=0.1656 and p=0.9095, respectively).
Individual analysis of animals from the WAS group revealed that, of the 5 animals tested, 3 animals had lower RI than the controls. Individual analysis of animals from the MDM group revealed that, of the 6 animals tested, all had an RI similar to the control group.