![]() ![]() ![]() The rider may experience consequences of back dysfunction of the horse, either by the reluctance of the horse to bend, sidedness or abnormal saddle movement. However, apart from a primary back problem, lameness may also affect spinal biomechanics, as was shown in studies on the effects of induced lameness. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.Ĭompeting interests: The involvement of ‘Tierklinik Lüsche GmbH’ does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.īack pain/dysfunction is a common cause of poor performance in horses which can cause alterations in spinal kinematics. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.įunding: Tierklinik Lüsche GmbH’ provided support in the form of salaries for authors, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript that could lead to conflicting situations. Received: SeptemAccepted: JanuPublished: February 25, 2020Ĭopyright: © 2020 Hardeman et al. PLoS ONE 15(2):Įditor: Chris Rogers, Massey University, NEW ZEALAND In conclusion, ROM and variation in spinal biomechanics are horse-specific and small, necessitating individual analysis and making subjective and objective clinical assessment of spinal kinematics challenging.Ĭitation: Hardeman AM, Byström A, Roepstorff L, Swagemakers JH, van Weeren PR, Serra Bragança FM (2020) Range of motion and between-measurement variation of spinal kinematics in sound horses at trot on the straight line and on the lunge. Between-horse variation was substantially higher than within-horse variation. ICC values for pelvic rotations were between 0.76 and 0.93, for the whole back flexion-extension and lateral bending between 0.51 and 0.91. More variation was seen on the recheck (p<0.001). For these five parameters, a tendency for more variation on the hard surface and reduced variation with increased repetitions was observed. Pelvic motion showed a variation of 1.0 (pitch), 0.7 (yaw) and 1.3 (roll) degrees. Mean variation for the flexion-extension and lateral bending of the whole back were 0.8 and 1 degrees. Cervical lateral bending was doubled on the left compared to the right lunge. ROM was lowest on the hard straight line. Elements of the outcome were: 1) Ranges of Motion (ROM) with confidence intervals per path and surface, 2) a variability model to calculate between-measurement variation and test the effect of time, surface and path, 3) intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to determine repeatability. Optical motion capture was used to collect kinematic data. Measurements were divided over three days, with five repetitions on day one and two, and two repetitions on day three (recheck) which occurred 28–55 days later. In an observational study, twelve owner-sound horses were trotted 12 times on four different paths (hard/soft straight line, soft lunge left and right). The aim of this study was to objectively quantify spinal kinematics and between -measurement, -surface and -day variation in owner-sound horses. A prerequisite for the quantification of spinal motion is the assessment of the expected normal range of motion and variability of back kinematics. Clinical assessment of spinal motion in horses is part of many routine clinical exams but remains highly subjective. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |