• 1. Kaneene JB, Ross WA, Miller RA. The Michigan equine monitoring system. II. Frequencies and impact of selected health problems. Prev Vet Med 1997; 29:277292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. USDA. National economic cost of equine lameness, colic, and equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) in the United States. Information sheet No. N348.1001. Fort Collins, Colo: USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Health Monitoring System, 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Keegan KG, Dent EV, Wilson DA, et al. Repeatability of subjective evaluation of lameness in horses. Equine Vet J 2010; 42:9297.

  • 4. Gaughan EM. Skeletal origins of exercise intolerance in horses. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1996; 12:517535.

  • 5. Keegan KG, Yonezawa Y, Pai PF, et al. Evaluation of a sensor-based system of motion analysis for detection and quantification of forelimb and hind limb lameness in horses. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65:665670.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Ishihara A, Bertone AL, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Association between subjective lameness grade and kinetic gait parameters in horses with experimentally induced forelimb lameness. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66:18051815.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Pfau T, Robilliard JJ, Weller R, et al. Assessment of mild hind limb lameness during over ground locomotion using linear discriminant analysis of inertial sensor data. Equine Vet J 2007; 39:407413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Moorman VJ, Reiser RF II, Peterson ML, et al. Effect of forelimb lameness on hoof kinematics of horses at a trot. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74:11831191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Moorman VJ, Reiser RF II, Mahaffey CA, et al. Use of an inertial measurement unit to assess the effect of forelimb lameness on three-dimensional hoof orientation in horses at a walk and trot. Am J Vet Res 2014; 75:800808.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Thomsen MH, Persson AB, Jensen AT, et al. Agreement between accelerometric symmetry scores and clinical lameness scores during experimentally induced transient distension of the metacarpophalangeal joint in horses. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010; 42:510515.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. McCracken MJ, Kramer J, Keegan KG, et al. Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation. Equine Vet J 2012; 44:652656.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Keegan KG, Wilson DA, Kramer J, et al. Comparison of a body-mounted inertial sensor system-based method with subjective evaluation for detection of lameness in horses. Am J Vet Res 2013; 74:1724.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Keegan KG, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y, et al. Assessment of repeatability of a wireless, inertial sensor-based lameness evaluation system for horses. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72:11561163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Keegan KG, MacAllister CG, Wilson DA, et al. Comparison of an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for evaluation of horses with bilateral forelimb lameness. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73:368374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Marshall JF, Lund DG, Voute LC. Use of a wireless, inertial sensor-based system to objectively evaluate flexion tests in the horse. Equine Vet J Suppl 2012; 43:811.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Starke SD, Raistrick KJ, May SA, et al. The effect of trotting speed on the evaluation of subtle lameness in horses. Vet J 2013; 197:245252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Buchner HHF, Savelberg HHCM, Schamhardt HC, et al. Kinematics of treadmill versus overground locomotion in horses. Vet Q 1994; 16 (suppl 2): S87S90.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Gómez Alvarez CB, Rhodin M, Byström A, et al. Back kinematics of healthy trotting horses during treadmill versus over ground locomotion. Equine Vet J 2009; 41:297300.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Effects of sensor position on kinematic data obtained with an inertial sensor system during gait analysis of trotting horses

Valerie J. Moorman DVM, PhD1, David D. Frisbie DVM, PhD2, Christopher E. Kawcak DVM, PhD3, and C. Wayne McIlwraith BVSc, PhD, DSC4
View More View Less
  • 1 Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
  • | 2 Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
  • | 3 Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
  • | 4 Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of altering location of right forelimb and pelvic sensors on kinematic data obtained with a commonly used inertial sensor system during gait analysis of trotting horses.

DESIGN Experimental study.

ANIMALS 12 horses with mild to moderate lameness of at least 1 hind limb, with or without lameness of the forelimbs.

PROCEDURES All horses were examined while trotting on a high-speed treadmill. The right forelimb sensor was tested at 3 anatomic locations in random order: dorsal midline and 2 cm medial and lateral to that midline. During another treadmill session, the pelvic sensor was tested at 5 anatomic locations in random order: dorsal midline, 2 cm to the right and left of midline, and 2 cm cranial and caudal to the tubera sacrale on the midline. Laterality of the pelvic sensor was analyzed in 2 ways: sensor toward the right or left and sensor toward or away from the lame or lamest hind limb. Maximum and minimum differences in head and pelvic motion and vector sum values were ranked and compared with values for the midline location by means of mixed-model ANOVA.

RESULTS Altering the location of the right forelimb sensor by 2 cm medially or laterally had no significant effect on forelimb or hind limb kinematics. However, location of the pelvic sensor had a significant effect on minimum difference in pelvic motion, regardless of whether the data were analyzed by laterality (right vs left) or toward versus away from the lame hind limb.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results of this study indicated that a 2-cm change in the location of the pelvic sensor during kinematic gait analysis had a significant effect on hind limb kinematic data of the system used. Therefore, placement of this sensor needs to be anatomically accurate.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of altering location of right forelimb and pelvic sensors on kinematic data obtained with a commonly used inertial sensor system during gait analysis of trotting horses.

DESIGN Experimental study.

ANIMALS 12 horses with mild to moderate lameness of at least 1 hind limb, with or without lameness of the forelimbs.

PROCEDURES All horses were examined while trotting on a high-speed treadmill. The right forelimb sensor was tested at 3 anatomic locations in random order: dorsal midline and 2 cm medial and lateral to that midline. During another treadmill session, the pelvic sensor was tested at 5 anatomic locations in random order: dorsal midline, 2 cm to the right and left of midline, and 2 cm cranial and caudal to the tubera sacrale on the midline. Laterality of the pelvic sensor was analyzed in 2 ways: sensor toward the right or left and sensor toward or away from the lame or lamest hind limb. Maximum and minimum differences in head and pelvic motion and vector sum values were ranked and compared with values for the midline location by means of mixed-model ANOVA.

RESULTS Altering the location of the right forelimb sensor by 2 cm medially or laterally had no significant effect on forelimb or hind limb kinematics. However, location of the pelvic sensor had a significant effect on minimum difference in pelvic motion, regardless of whether the data were analyzed by laterality (right vs left) or toward versus away from the lame hind limb.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results of this study indicated that a 2-cm change in the location of the pelvic sensor during kinematic gait analysis had a significant effect on hind limb kinematic data of the system used. Therefore, placement of this sensor needs to be anatomically accurate.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Moorman (valerie.moorman@colostate.edu).