Comparison of temporospatial and kinetic variables of walking in small and large dogs on a pressure-sensing walkway

Jongmin Kim Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Jongmin Kim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Kris A. Kazmierczak Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Kris A. Kazmierczak in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
, and
Gert J. Breur Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Gert J. Breur in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To compare temporospatial variables (TSVs) and kinetic variables (KVs) for fore-limbs and hind limbs of small and large dogs of various breeds during walking and to determine associations among body weight (BW), TSVs, and KVs in these groups.

Animals—12 adult dogs with no evidence of lameness.

Procedures—Dogs (grouped according to BW as small [< 10 kg; n = 6] or large [> 25 kg; 6]) were walked in a straight line at their preferred velocity on a wooden platform with an embedded pressure-sensing walkway. Five valid trials were analyzed for each dog; mean TSVs and KVs were determined for each group. The TSVs and KVs for forelimbs and hind limbs were compared between groups, and correlations among BW, TSVs, and KVs were determined.

Results—Small dogs had significantly smaller TSVs and KVs than did large dogs. Temporal variables of small dogs and absolute vertical force variables of small and large dogs increased as BW increased. However, normalized peak vertical force and weight distribution values among the 4 limbs were similar between groups.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Substantial similarities and differences were detected in gait characteristics between small and large dogs. Results indicated TSVs and KVs can be used for comparison of the walking gait between dogs or for comparison of variables between limbs in an individual dog. Use of the pressure-sensing walkway is a simple method for acquisition of TSVs and KVs for large and small dogs.

Abstract

Objective—To compare temporospatial variables (TSVs) and kinetic variables (KVs) for fore-limbs and hind limbs of small and large dogs of various breeds during walking and to determine associations among body weight (BW), TSVs, and KVs in these groups.

Animals—12 adult dogs with no evidence of lameness.

Procedures—Dogs (grouped according to BW as small [< 10 kg; n = 6] or large [> 25 kg; 6]) were walked in a straight line at their preferred velocity on a wooden platform with an embedded pressure-sensing walkway. Five valid trials were analyzed for each dog; mean TSVs and KVs were determined for each group. The TSVs and KVs for forelimbs and hind limbs were compared between groups, and correlations among BW, TSVs, and KVs were determined.

Results—Small dogs had significantly smaller TSVs and KVs than did large dogs. Temporal variables of small dogs and absolute vertical force variables of small and large dogs increased as BW increased. However, normalized peak vertical force and weight distribution values among the 4 limbs were similar between groups.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Substantial similarities and differences were detected in gait characteristics between small and large dogs. Results indicated TSVs and KVs can be used for comparison of the walking gait between dogs or for comparison of variables between limbs in an individual dog. Use of the pressure-sensing walkway is a simple method for acquisition of TSVs and KVs for large and small dogs.

  • 1.

    Kirtley C. The temporal-spatial parameters. In: Clinical gait analysis. Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2006; 1537.

  • 2.

    Jöhnk K, Johann PK-B, Henning S, et al. Assessment of sensorimotor functions after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in childhood—methodological aspects. Restor Neurol Neurosci 1999; 14: 143152.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Cioni M, Esquenazi A, Hirai B. Effects of botulinum toxin-A on gait velocity, step length, and base of support of patients with dynamic equinovarus foot. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85: 600606.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Horn TS, Yablon SA, Stokic DS. Effect of intrathecal baclofen bolus injection on temporospatial gait characteristics in patients with acquired brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 11271133.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Bertram JE, Lee DV, Case HN, et al. Comparison of the trotting gaits of Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 2000; 61: 832838.

  • 6.

    DeCamp CE. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis and the assessment of lameness in the dog. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1997; 27: 825840.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Innes J. Vetting lame dogs—objective assessment of limb function in dogs, in Proceedings. Hill's Eur Symp 2007; 4043.

  • 8.

    McLaughlin RM. Kinetic and kinematic gait analysis in dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 193201.

  • 9.

    Weigel JP, Arnold G, Hicks DA, et al. Biomechanics of rehabilitation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35: 12551285.

  • 10.

    Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW. Force plate analysis of the walking gait in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 1987; 48: 915918.

  • 11.

    Biewener AA. Movement on land. In: Biewener AA, ed. Animal locomotion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; 4677.

  • 12.

    Voss K, Imhof J, Kaestner S, et al. Force plate gait analysis at the walk and trot in dogs with low-grade hindlimb lameness. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 299304.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Whittlesey SN, van Emmerik RE, Hamill J. The swing phase of human walking is not a passive movement. Motor Control 2000; 4: 273292.

  • 14.

    Jelen P, Wit A, Dudzinski K, et al. Expressing gait-line symmetry in able-bodied gait. Dyn Med 2008; 7: 17.

  • 15.

    Colborne GR. Are sound dogs mechanically symmetric at trot? No, actually. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 294301.

  • 16.

    Gordon-Evans WJ, Evans RB, Conzemius MG. Accuracy of spatiotemporal variables in gait analysis of neurologic dogs. J Neurotrauma 2009; 26: 10551060.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Riggs CM, DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, et al. Effects of subject velocity on force plate-measured ground reaction forces in healthy Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54: 15231526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Roush JK & McLaughlin RM Jr. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the walk. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 16721676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    McLaughlin RM Jr, Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 16661671.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement