Comparison of two methods for analyzing kinetic gait data in dogs

Sami Al-Nadaf Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Search for other papers by Sami Al-Nadaf in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Bryan T. Torres Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Search for other papers by Bryan T. Torres in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
, and
Steven C. Budsberg Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Search for other papers by Steven C. Budsberg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS

Abstract

Objective—To compare results of single-point kinetic gait analysis (peak and impulse) with those of complete gait waveform analysis.

Animals—15 healthy adult mixed-breed dogs.

Procedures—Dogs were trotted across 2 force platforms (velocity, 1.7 to 2.1 m/s; acceleration and deceleration, 0.5 m/s2). Five valid trials were recorded on each testing day. Testing days 1 and 2 were separated by 1 week, as were days 3 and 4. Testing days 1 and 2 were separated from days 3 and 4 by 1 year. A paired t test was performed to evaluate interday and interyear differences for vertical and craniocaudal propulsion peak forces and impulses. Vertical and craniocaudal propulsion force-time waveforms were similarly compared by use of generalized indicator function analysis (GIFA).

Results—Vertical and craniocaudal propulsion peak forces and impulses did not differ significantly between days 1 and 2 or days 3 and 4. When data were compared between years, no significant differences were found for vertical impulse and craniocaudal propulsion peak force and impulse, but differences were detected for vertical peak force. The GIFA of the vertical and craniocaudal force-time waveforms identified significant interday and interyear differences. These results were identical for both hind limbs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Findings indicated that when comparing kinetic data overtime, additional insight may be gleaned from GIFA of the complete waveform, particularly when subtle waveform differences are present.

Abstract

Objective—To compare results of single-point kinetic gait analysis (peak and impulse) with those of complete gait waveform analysis.

Animals—15 healthy adult mixed-breed dogs.

Procedures—Dogs were trotted across 2 force platforms (velocity, 1.7 to 2.1 m/s; acceleration and deceleration, 0.5 m/s2). Five valid trials were recorded on each testing day. Testing days 1 and 2 were separated by 1 week, as were days 3 and 4. Testing days 1 and 2 were separated from days 3 and 4 by 1 year. A paired t test was performed to evaluate interday and interyear differences for vertical and craniocaudal propulsion peak forces and impulses. Vertical and craniocaudal propulsion force-time waveforms were similarly compared by use of generalized indicator function analysis (GIFA).

Results—Vertical and craniocaudal propulsion peak forces and impulses did not differ significantly between days 1 and 2 or days 3 and 4. When data were compared between years, no significant differences were found for vertical impulse and craniocaudal propulsion peak force and impulse, but differences were detected for vertical peak force. The GIFA of the vertical and craniocaudal force-time waveforms identified significant interday and interyear differences. These results were identical for both hind limbs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Findings indicated that when comparing kinetic data overtime, additional insight may be gleaned from GIFA of the complete waveform, particularly when subtle waveform differences are present.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Budsberg (budsberg@uga.edu).
  • 1.

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

  • 2.

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

  • 3.

    Budsberg SC, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW, et al. Force plate analyses before and after stabilization of canine stifles for cruciate injury. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49:15221524.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    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
  • 5.

    Jevens DJ, Hauptman JG, DeCamp CE, et al. Contributions to variance in force-plate analysis of gait in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54:612615.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    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
  • 7.

    Rumph PF, Lander JE, Kincaid SA, et al. Ground reaction force profiles from force platform gait analyses of clinically normal mesomorphic dogs at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55:756761.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Bennett RL, DeCamp CE, Flo GL, et al. Kinematic gait analysis in dogs with hip dysplasia. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57:966971.

  • 9.

    DeCamp CE, Riggs CM, Olivier NB, et al. Kinematic evaluation of gait in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57:120126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Hottinger HA, DeCamp CE, Olivier NB, et al. Noninvasive kinematic analysis of the walk in healthy large-breed dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996; 57:381388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Schaefer SL, DeCamp CE, Hauptman JG, et al. Kinematic gait analysis of hind limb symmetry in dogs at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1998; 59:680685.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Allen K, DeCamp CE, Braden T, et al. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy mixed breed dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 7:148153.

  • 13.

    DeCamp CE, Soutas-Little RW, Hauptman J, et al. Kinematic gait analysis of the trot in healthy Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54:627634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Astephen JL, Deluzio KJ. A multivariate gait data analysis technique: application to knee osteoarthritis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2004; 218:271279.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Deluzio KJ, Astephen JL. Biomechanical features of gait waveform data associated with knee osteoarthritis: an application of principal component analysis. Gait Posture 2007; 25:8693.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Deluzio KJ, Wyss UP, Zee B, et al. Principal component models of knee kinematics and kinetics: normal vs. pathological gait patterns. J Human Movement Sci 1997; 16:243258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Torres BT, Punke JP, Fu YC, et al. Comparison of canine stifle kinematic data collected with three different targeting models. Vet Surg 2010; 39:504512.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Anderson GI, Hearn T, Taves C. Force plate gait analysis in normal and dysplastic dogs before and after total hip replacement surgery: an experimental study. Vet Surg 1988; 17:27.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Katic N, Bockstahler BA, Mueller M, et al. Fourier analysis of vertical ground reaction forces in dogs with unilateral hind limb lameness caused by degenerative disease of the hip joint and in dogs without lameness. Am J Vet Res 2009; 70:118126.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    McLaughlin RM Jr, Miller CW, Taves CL, et al. Force plate analysis of triple pelvic osteotomy for the treatment of canine hip dysplasia. Vet Surg 1991; 20:291297.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Schneider E, Chao EY. Fourier analysis of ground reaction forces in normals and patients with knee joint disease. J Biomech 1983; 16:591601.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Dow SM, Leendertz JA, Silver IA, et al. Identification of subclinical tendon injury from ground reaction force analysis. Equine Vet J 1991; 23:266272.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Williams GE, Silverman BW, Wilson AM, et al. Disease-specific changes in equine ground reaction force data documented by use of principal component analysis. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60:549555.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Muniz AM, Manfio EF, Andrade MC, et al. Principal component analysis of vertical ground reaction force: a powerful method to discriminate normal and abnormal gait and assess treatment. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2006; 1:26832686.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Muniz AM, Nadal J. Application of principal component analysis in vertical ground reaction force to discriminate normal and abnormal gait. Gait Posture 2009; 29:3135.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Bertram JA, Lee DV, Todhunter RL, et al. Multiple force platform analysis of the canine trot: a new approach to assessing basic characteristics of locomotion. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10:160169.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    DuLaney D, Purinton T, Dookwah H, et al. Effect of starting distance on vertical 237 ground reaction forces in the normal dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18:183185.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Gillette RL, Angle TC. Recent developments in canine locomotor analysis: a review. Vet J 2008; 178:165176.

  • 29.

    Jacobs NA, Skorecki J, Charnley J. Analysis of the vertical component of force in normal and pathological gait. J Biomech 1972; 5:1134.

  • 30.

    Chau T. A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 1: fuzzy, statistical and fractal methods. Gait Posture 2001; 13:4966.

  • 31.

    Yokoo T, Knight BW, Sirovich L. An optimization approach to signal extraction from noisy multivariate data. Neuroimage 2001; 14:13091326.

  • 32.

    Rumph PF, Steiss JE, West MS. Interday variation in vertical ground reaction force in clinically normal Greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60:679683.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Rumph PF, Steiss JE, Montgomery RD. Effects of selection and habituation on vertical ground reaction force in Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 1997; 58:12061208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Rumph PF, Kincaid SA, Baird DK, et al. Vertical ground reaction force distribution during experimentally induced acute synovitis in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993; 54:365369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Fanchon L, Grandjean D. Habituation of healthy dogs to treadmill trotting: repeatability assessment of vertical ground reaction force. Res Vet Sci 2009; 87:135139.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    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
  • 37.

    Colborne GR, Innes JF, Comerford EJ, et al. Distribution of power across the hind limb joints in Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66:15631571.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement