• 1. Turner TA. Thermography as an aid to the clinical lameness evaluation. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1991; 7:311338.

  • 2. Eddy AL, Van Hoogmoed LM, Snyder JR. The role of thermography in the management of equine lameness. Vet J 2001; 162:172181.

  • 3. Smith WM. Applications of thermography in veterinary medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1964; 9:248254.

  • 4. Turner TA, Fessler JF, Lamp M, et al. Thermographic evaluation of horses with podotrochlosis. Am J Vet Res 1983; 44:535539.

  • 5. Turner TA. Diagnostic thermography. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2001; 17:95113.

  • 6. Purohit RC, McCoy MD. Thermography in the diagnosis of inflammatory processes in the horse. Am J Vet Res 1980; 41:11671174.

  • 7. Denoix JM. Diagnostic techniques for identification and documentation of tendon and ligament injuries. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1994; 10:365407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. von Schweinitz D. Thermographic diagnostics in equine back pain. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1999; 15:161177.

  • 9. Purohit RC, Pascoe DD, DeFranco B, et al. Thermographic evaluation of the neurovascular system in the equine. Thermol Int 2004; 14:8992.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Palmer SE. Effect of ambient temperature upon the surface temperature of the equine limb. Am J Vet Res 1983; 44:10981101.

  • 11. Autio E, Neste R, Airaksinen S, et al. Measuring the heat loss in horses in different seasons by infrared thermography. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2006; 9:211221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Simon EL, Gaughan EM, Epp T, et al. Influence of exercise on thermographically determined surface temperatures of thoracic and pelvic limbs in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229:19401944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Head MJ, Dyson S. Talking the temperature of equine thermography. Vet J 2001; 162:166167.

  • 14. Ammer K, Ring EF. Repeatability of the standard view both dorsal hands. Results from a training course on medical infrared imaging. Thermol Int 2004; 14:100103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Tunley BV, Henson FM. Reliability and repeatability of thermographic examination and the normal thermographic image of the thoracolumbar region in the horse. Equine Vet J 2004; 36:306312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Vaden MF, Purohit RC, McCoy MD, et al. Thermography: a technique for subclinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Am J Vet Res 1980; 41:11751179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Fonseca BPA, Alves ALG, Nicoletti JLM, et al. Thermography and ultrasonography in back pain diagnosis of equine athletes. J Equine Vet Sci 2006; 26:507516.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Kold SE, Chappell KA. Use of computerised thermographic image analysis (CTIA) in equine orthopaedics: review and presentation of clinical cases. Equine Vet Educ 1998; 10:198204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Turner TA. Thermography as an aid in the localisation of upper hindlimb lameness. Pferdeheilkunde 1996; 12:632634

  • 20. Maurer A, Mayr H. Der Messabstand als Einflussparameter auf die Reproduzierbarkeit bei IR-Thermographiemessungen. Eur J Thermol 1998; 8:101103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Ring EFJ, Dicks J, Elvins DM. High resolution infra-red imaging. Eur J Thermol 1998; 8:7172.

  • 22. Lusk RH. Thermoregulation. In: Ettinger SJ, ed. Textbook of veterinary internal medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1989; 2326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Mogg KC, Pollitt CC. Hoof and distal limb surface temperature in the normal pony under constant and changing ambient temperatures. Equine Vet J 1992; 24:134139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Effects of infrared camera angle and distance on measurement and reproducibility of thermographically determined temperatures of the distolateral aspects of the forelimbs in horses

Simone Westermann Dr med vet1, Heinz H. F. Buchner Dr med vet, PhD2, Johannes P. Schramel Dr med vet3, Alexander Tichy Dr rer nat4, and Christian Stanek Prof Dr med vet5
View More View Less
  • 1 Units of Large Animal Surgery and Orthopaedics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 2 Units of Large Animal Surgery and Orthopaedics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 3 Internal Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 4 Equine Clinic, and Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.
  • | 5 Units of Large Animal Surgery and Orthopaedics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria.

Abstract

Objective—To assess effects of camera angle and distance on measurement and reproducibility of thermographically determined temperatures of the distolateral aspect of the forelimbs in horses.

Design—Evaluation study.

Animals—10 adult horses.

Procedures—Thermographic images of both forelimbs were obtained at 3 times during the day (replicates 1, 2, and 3); maximum surface temperature over 1 region (distolateral aspect of the third metacarpal bone and metacarpophalangeal joint) was measured. Standard images were obtained every 5 minutes for 1 hour with the camera positioned at an angle of 90° and a distance of 1.0 m from the forelimb; additional images were obtained at changed (± 20°) angles or at a 1.5-m distance. At the end of each replicate, 4 sets of additional images were obtained at 2-minute intervals to assess short-term reproducibility.

Results—Mean ± SD temperature difference between left and right forelimbs was 0.32° ± 0.27°C (0.58° ± 0.49°F) in standard images. Temperatures measured via standard images were highly correlated with those measured with the camera positioned at changed angles or distance. Mean ± SD differences between temperatures measured via standard images and those measured from changed angles or distance were considered small (≤ 0.22° ± 0.18°C [0.40° ± 0.32°F] for all comparisons). The degree of short-term reproducibility was high.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Thermographically determined temperatures were unaffected by 20° changes in camera angle or a 0.5-m increase in camera distance from the forelimb. Minor temperature differences between left and right forelimbs were detected in the study and should be considered during diagnostic investigations.

Abstract

Objective—To assess effects of camera angle and distance on measurement and reproducibility of thermographically determined temperatures of the distolateral aspect of the forelimbs in horses.

Design—Evaluation study.

Animals—10 adult horses.

Procedures—Thermographic images of both forelimbs were obtained at 3 times during the day (replicates 1, 2, and 3); maximum surface temperature over 1 region (distolateral aspect of the third metacarpal bone and metacarpophalangeal joint) was measured. Standard images were obtained every 5 minutes for 1 hour with the camera positioned at an angle of 90° and a distance of 1.0 m from the forelimb; additional images were obtained at changed (± 20°) angles or at a 1.5-m distance. At the end of each replicate, 4 sets of additional images were obtained at 2-minute intervals to assess short-term reproducibility.

Results—Mean ± SD temperature difference between left and right forelimbs was 0.32° ± 0.27°C (0.58° ± 0.49°F) in standard images. Temperatures measured via standard images were highly correlated with those measured with the camera positioned at changed angles or distance. Mean ± SD differences between temperatures measured via standard images and those measured from changed angles or distance were considered small (≤ 0.22° ± 0.18°C [0.40° ± 0.32°F] for all comparisons). The degree of short-term reproducibility was high.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Thermographically determined temperatures were unaffected by 20° changes in camera angle or a 0.5-m increase in camera distance from the forelimb. Minor temperature differences between left and right forelimbs were detected in the study and should be considered during diagnostic investigations.

Contributor Notes

The authors thank Andreas Angerer at InfraTec GmbH for technical support.

Address correspondence to Dr. Westermann (Simone.Westermann@vetmeduni.ac.at).