• 1.

    Caron JP. Objective and subjective gait analysis techniques. In: White NA, Moore JN, eds. Current techniques in equine surgery and lameness. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1998;501504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Fuller CJ, Bladon BM, Driver AJ, et al. The intra- and inter-assessor reliability of measurement of functional outcome by lameness scoring in horses. Vet J 2006;171:281286.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Hewetson M, Christley RM, Hunt ID, et al. Investigations of the reliability of observational gait analysis for the assessment of lameness in horses. Vet Rec 2006;158:852857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Keegan KG, Wilson DA, Wilson DJ, et al. Evaluation of mild lameness in horses trotting on a treadmill by clinicians and interns or residents and correlation of their assessments with kinematic gait analysis. Am J Vet Res 1998;59:13701377.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Keegan KG, Dent EV, Wilson DA, et al. Repeatability of subjective evaluation of lameness in horses. Equine Vet J 2010;42:9297.

  • 7.

    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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Arkell M, Archer RM, Guitian FJ, et al. Evidence of bias affecting the interpretation of the results of local anaesthetic nerve blocks when assessing lameness in horses. Vet Rec 2006;159:346349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Riber C, Cuesta I, Munoz A, et al. Equine locomotor analysis on vet-gates in endurance events. Equine Vet J Suppl 2006;36:5559.

  • 10.

    Keegan KG. Evidence-based lameness detection and quantification. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2007;23:403423.

  • 11.

    Kramer J, Keegan KG. Kinematics of lameness. In: Hinchcliff KW, Kaneps AJ, Geor RJ, eds. Equine sports medicine and surgery. 2nd ed: Saunders Elsevier, 2013;223238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Equinosis. The equinosis with lameness locator user manual. Columbia, Mo: Equinosis LLC, 2016.

  • 13.

    Clayton HM, White AD, Kaiser LJ, et al. Short-term habituation of equine limb kinematics to tactile stimulation of the coronet. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008;21:211214.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Lopes MAF, Eleuterio A, Mira MC. Objective detection and quantification of irregular gait with a portable inertial sensor-based system in horses during an endurance race—a preliminary assessment. J Equine Vet Sci 2018;70:123129.

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

    Curran-Everett D. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000;279:R1R8.

  • 16.

    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.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Effects of forelimb instrumentation on lameness detection in horses using a portable inertial sensor–based system

View More View Less
  • 1 From the Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of a small sensor attached to the pastern region of a forelimb on lameness detection and quantification with a portable inertial sensor–based system (PISBS) for lameness detection and quantification in horses.

ANIMALS

20 adult horses (body weight, 410 to 650 kg) with no visible lameness at the walk.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study design, horses were evaluated at the trot twice using the PISBS with the gyroscope alternately attached to the right forelimb pastern region (as recommended by the manufacturer) or to the left forelimb pastern region (with the sensor flipped 180° on the frontal plane relative to the standard position). Agreement between the 2 instrumentation approaches was investigated graphically and by repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

No effects of instrumentation of a forelimb with the gyroscope were detected on the lame limb or limbs or on lameness severity. Attachment of the gyroscope to a forelimb had no effect on forelimb or hind limb lameness (ie, did not cause or mask lameness) as measured with the PISBS.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Instrumentation of a forelimb with a lightweight gyroscope for lameness evaluations with a PISBS had no effects on lameness measurements in horses. Results suggested that, when indicated, the gyroscope can be attached (while flipped 180° on the frontal plane relative to the standard position) to the left forelimb (rather than the right forelimb).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of a small sensor attached to the pastern region of a forelimb on lameness detection and quantification with a portable inertial sensor–based system (PISBS) for lameness detection and quantification in horses.

ANIMALS

20 adult horses (body weight, 410 to 650 kg) with no visible lameness at the walk.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study design, horses were evaluated at the trot twice using the PISBS with the gyroscope alternately attached to the right forelimb pastern region (as recommended by the manufacturer) or to the left forelimb pastern region (with the sensor flipped 180° on the frontal plane relative to the standard position). Agreement between the 2 instrumentation approaches was investigated graphically and by repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

No effects of instrumentation of a forelimb with the gyroscope were detected on the lame limb or limbs or on lameness severity. Attachment of the gyroscope to a forelimb had no effect on forelimb or hind limb lameness (ie, did not cause or mask lameness) as measured with the PISBS.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Instrumentation of a forelimb with a lightweight gyroscope for lameness evaluations with a PISBS had no effects on lameness measurements in horses. Results suggested that, when indicated, the gyroscope can be attached (while flipped 180° on the frontal plane relative to the standard position) to the left forelimb (rather than the right forelimb).

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Figure S1 (PDF 405 KB)
    • Supplementary Figure S2 (PDF 345 KB)
    • Supplementary Table S1 (PDF 144 KB)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Lopes (maflopes@gmail.com).