• 1. Carberry CA, Harvey HJ. Owner satisfaction with limb amputation in dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1987; 23:227232.

  • 2. Kirpensteijn J, Van den Bos R, Van den Brom WE, et al. Ground reaction force analysis of large breed dogs when walking after the amputation of a limb. Vet Rec 2000; 146:155159.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Lee DV, Bertram JE, Todhunter RJ. Acceleration and balance in trotting dogs. J Exp Biol 1999; 202:35653573.

  • 4. Kirpensteijn J, Van den Bos R, Endenburg N. Adaptation of dogs to the amputation of a limb and their owners' satisfaction with the procedure. Vet Rec 1999; 144:115118.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Vincent WJ. In: Statistics in kinesiology. 3rd ed. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics, 2005;162.

  • 6. Peham C, Scheidl M, Licka T. A method of signal processing in motion analysis of the trotting horse. J Biomech 1996; 29:11111114.

  • 7. Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. In: Research methods in physical activity. 6th ed. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics, 2011;172.

  • 8. Jarvis SL, Worley DR, Hogy SM, et al. Kinematic and kinetic analysis of dogs during trotting after amputation of a thoracic limb. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74:11551163.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. 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
  • 10. Borer LR, Peel JE, Seewald W, et al. Effect of carprofen, etodolac, meloxicam, or butorphanol in dogs with induced acute synovitis. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64:14291437.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Torres BT, Whitlock D, Reynolds LR, et al. The effect of marker location variability on noninvasive canine stifle kinematics. Vet Surg 2011; 40:715719.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Kinematic and kinetic analysis of dogs during trotting after amputation of a pelvic limb

Sara M. HogySchool of Biomedical Engineering, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Sara M. Hogy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Deanna R. WorleyFlint Animal Cancer Center, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Deanna R. Worley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Sarah L. JarvisSchool of Biomedical Engineering, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Sarah L. Jarvis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Ashley E. HillDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Search for other papers by Ashley E. Hill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MPVM, PhD
,
Raoul F. Reiser IISchool of Biomedical Engineering, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Raoul F. Reiser II in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Kevin K. HausslerSchool of Biomedical Engineering, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Search for other papers by Kevin K. Haussler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DC, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate biomechanical gait adaptations in dogs after amputation of a pelvic limb.

Animals—Client-owned dogs (12 pelvic limb–amputee and 24 quadruped [control] dogs).

Procedures—Dogs were trotted across 3 in-series force platforms. Spatial kinematic and kinetic data were recorded for each limb during the stance phase.

Results—Pelvic limb amputees had increased peak braking forces in the contralateral thoracic limb and increased propulsive forces and impulses in both the ipsilateral thoracic limb and remaining pelvic limb. Time to peak braking force was significantly decreased, and time to peak propulsive force was significantly increased in all remaining limbs in amputees. Amputees had an increase in range of motion at the tarsal joint of the remaining pelvic limb, compared with results for the control dogs. Amputees had increased vertebral range of motion at T1 and T13 and increased vertebral extension at L7 within the sagittal plane. In the horizontal plane, amputees had increased lateral bending toward the remaining pelvic limb, which resulted in a laterally deviated gait pattern.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Pelvic limb amputees adjusted to loss of a limb through increased range of motion at the tarsal joint, increased range of motion in the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar vertebral regions, and extension of the lumbosacral vertebral region, compared with results for the control dogs. Amputees alternated between a laterally deviated gait when the pelvic limb was in propulsion and a regular cranially oriented gait pattern when either forelimb was in propulsion with horizontal rotation around L7.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate biomechanical gait adaptations in dogs after amputation of a pelvic limb.

Animals—Client-owned dogs (12 pelvic limb–amputee and 24 quadruped [control] dogs).

Procedures—Dogs were trotted across 3 in-series force platforms. Spatial kinematic and kinetic data were recorded for each limb during the stance phase.

Results—Pelvic limb amputees had increased peak braking forces in the contralateral thoracic limb and increased propulsive forces and impulses in both the ipsilateral thoracic limb and remaining pelvic limb. Time to peak braking force was significantly decreased, and time to peak propulsive force was significantly increased in all remaining limbs in amputees. Amputees had an increase in range of motion at the tarsal joint of the remaining pelvic limb, compared with results for the control dogs. Amputees had increased vertebral range of motion at T1 and T13 and increased vertebral extension at L7 within the sagittal plane. In the horizontal plane, amputees had increased lateral bending toward the remaining pelvic limb, which resulted in a laterally deviated gait pattern.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Pelvic limb amputees adjusted to loss of a limb through increased range of motion at the tarsal joint, increased range of motion in the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar vertebral regions, and extension of the lumbosacral vertebral region, compared with results for the control dogs. Amputees alternated between a laterally deviated gait when the pelvic limb was in propulsion and a regular cranially oriented gait pattern when either forelimb was in propulsion with horizontal rotation around L7.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Worley (dworley@colostate.edu).

Supported in part by the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences College Research Council and the Colorado State University Flint Animal Cancer Center.

This manuscript represents a portion of a thesis submitted by Ms. Hogy to the Colorado State University School of Biomedical Engineering as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree.

The authors thank Kristen Weishaar, Kelly Carlsten, Laura Steele, and Laura Chubb for technical assistance.