Comparison of overground and treadmill-based gaits of dogs

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
,
Noel M. M. Moëns Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2M7, Canada.

Search for other papers by Noel M. M. Moëns in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MSc
,
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
,
Lisa R. Reynolds Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Search for other papers by Lisa R. Reynolds in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Yang-Chieh Fu Department of Kinesiology, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Search for other papers by Yang-Chieh Fu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, 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 overground and treadmill-based gaits of dogs.

Animals —5 clinically normal adult mixed-breed dogs.

Procedures—To obtain dynamic gait data, 30 retroreflective markers were affixed bilaterally to specific regions of the hind limbs and pelvis of each dog. For each dog, 3-D joint motion data (sagittal [flexion and extension], transverse [internal and external rotation], and frontal [abduction and adduction] planes of motion) for the hip, femorotibial, and tarsal joints were acquired during walking and trotting through a calibrated testing space overground or on a treadmill. Comparison of data was performed via generalized indicator function analysis and Fourier analysis.

Results—Both overground and treadmill-based gaits produced similar waveforms in all planes of motion. Fourier analysis revealed no difference between overground and treadmill-based gaits in the sagittal plane of motion; however, small differences were detected between overground and treadmill-based gaits in the other 2 planes of motion. Additionally, femorotibial joint motion during walking did not differ among planes of motion. Generalized indicator function analysis was able to detect differences between overground and treadmill-based gait waveforms in all planes of motion for all joints during walking and trotting.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In dogs, overground and treadmill-based gaits produced similar waveform shapes. Of the 3 planes of motion evaluated, only sagittal plane kinematic gait data were unaffected by mode of ambulation as determined via Fourier analysis. Sagittal kinematic gait data collected from dogs during overground or treadmill-based ambulation were comparable. However, analysis methods may affect data comparisons.

Abstract

Objective—To compare overground and treadmill-based gaits of dogs.

Animals —5 clinically normal adult mixed-breed dogs.

Procedures—To obtain dynamic gait data, 30 retroreflective markers were affixed bilaterally to specific regions of the hind limbs and pelvis of each dog. For each dog, 3-D joint motion data (sagittal [flexion and extension], transverse [internal and external rotation], and frontal [abduction and adduction] planes of motion) for the hip, femorotibial, and tarsal joints were acquired during walking and trotting through a calibrated testing space overground or on a treadmill. Comparison of data was performed via generalized indicator function analysis and Fourier analysis.

Results—Both overground and treadmill-based gaits produced similar waveforms in all planes of motion. Fourier analysis revealed no difference between overground and treadmill-based gaits in the sagittal plane of motion; however, small differences were detected between overground and treadmill-based gaits in the other 2 planes of motion. Additionally, femorotibial joint motion during walking did not differ among planes of motion. Generalized indicator function analysis was able to detect differences between overground and treadmill-based gait waveforms in all planes of motion for all joints during walking and trotting.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In dogs, overground and treadmill-based gaits produced similar waveform shapes. Of the 3 planes of motion evaluated, only sagittal plane kinematic gait data were unaffected by mode of ambulation as determined via Fourier analysis. Sagittal kinematic gait data collected from dogs during overground or treadmill-based ambulation were comparable. However, analysis methods may affect data comparisons.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 199 0 0
Full Text Views 968 581 100
PDF Downloads 560 276 26
Advertisement